





ere ete a - ~- —— — - > - _ 
va aw ae a Leaded ~~ — oie? . ° 3 n a teal 
ee ee eee — w- -~ =~ ‘ ’ ~ Oe et —- 5 nd 7 —_— ~ = 
Sapa as joe - ~ mes — —o" a wont PEL AL we oo aa reer on aw - = oe 
- . o- eee ae — : — — - or oo = eee —_ ~~ wenger © Al ~ - —_ — wow ewe + me ee TT A -™ ower 
: me : == = - rerinrairne . — ee eS ont ~ — - tre - PP BRE PL _ a sna anc et 
SSecagchnapest--ant-ttnved ~— owen —= “ ee ee ones te = —- - ete ~ ~~ Sow ° ~ _—<ee ~ ~ fee tinted PO PPL OLOT I 
a gO A ROCA OTE - : See ea 
vee ‘amt “— ae nage et ouside =” PN Le - ww - ———* ’ - _— a ~ ——_ ~~ ~~ —~—www ee Laie —_— ~ ed a a —_ 
~ ~ — + oem tre —ws ~ we ~~ — —w—~ —- - evtctet . . Ne ee Steen ~ See apd 
—_~ — eee eer eet Ot — er ~ em o Re anal —— - od - ax nines ae ner eS 4 
~—s = ~~ par ae ern o - a nainr = oo oer ee ee a ate POA pee Aa ~ Re  easeubes ae eet nee On “ ~ 
Senna nrereravesine ae ener ener ge AN ee ooaet — eoeerus ~~ ~ =~ ~ On en OAT OER AE ral were eae 
- _—_ ee GA LM eae - —— at a erm: Pt — en oS ore + wee tet el OO —— - poe 
—— re de ee A AS a eae 4 ~ oe nae ~—e a eS aan - a wa Ce Saar" a nth me alae een eee 
— Ae ee ~ ~—— ae al ee ee arm Leeneeint —— -— - eT en > me mo Se -soe mae . = ere = oe 3 
Sp oar erinertannssaanantee cneantastietine teeta peyeme: citi end ge Oe Pe er | a a ae - o oe - — et OS I oe —— Pee ee an inal 
pipteetn Sota pee ee te ean on = tt pan a ct an OO ee ts a eT ane See ere TT ob eeane rane” ney oer 
de eptnin tenia inthe eee ged meee ne Serre er ane epee ~ awe . noe + 9 20-9 one Pen - OF eis ranbe ners oe Srey oe Cire aar ee mn rnin sere Te saree me ouvee, banaeneeneeiea 
ne: LOLS LOO a ~ ee - Re oe — ou a —- — ~ 6 eye see ete OE Fett Or ~ aoe 
ice craetgengee ete nanan noes _ Soreweeons — ad a ceetietnatndl oe tengo ~-* ————. _ ~ Se ee nena ee eee er 
~— ao near ree Ne eters —— ors - Sawer ae . ~ — Se wee eS oan morent~ “~- ~~ owe on Oe ee po te) eS gain 
re ae ape ame et oe ea OOO ed ee. 2 s_aanatiet ome ite “ eS edd aw a Aine ONT ee ee ge ee ea erel™ 
ee al ROGaaageeuaes re a ae en - 3 _- wn ae - ee —— ne — Poa wr es 2p Sn pret er epee 
~ eneahn ea ata any = aan AAA et wnat eet epee -_ ~ - - a OE Pt I — ~ ee ete Pe PO ae aa nr 
= ions nese ainle ane en ne nente sone on nee a eet non ee — 90 ve te ~ ae OO be Ca OO OP ape ae OD OR eran ene ~ 
a aie AO th ta A OA AL le ag eel A COPE ae a ateeuietntid oo Peo ae eee - rot = : = : Sa - Seon ots = 
- ~s Ne aacetiee tind Oe minha ea ww a a » P ~ LR Os OLOGY penta oars te ~ A ea - . = 
ne ee eet a tt ecient ee pe Te ee ee cnn eee al A OL AO AOL = 
a ~ ——— = — 7 eer manna el eS, FT ted POCO LT Tt OP gyn oto, i OO eS = a pemeentied ae _* 
= - ~ " > Peter nnn a tant ee fl OO OOD eh OS on er 
sxe niv “ magna area? ine er ty a mine nate OTS neeney ares 
- ~ wr 
; —~ — > shat eae weer OOO 
a . < - 
~> . 
- -— ; 
- 
« 


amy 


rer www 


eR Oe 


ae 


(am a 


ate ers 


Td 


Pir 


the et 


— Library of The Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON : NEW JERSEY 
CS): 


From the Library of 


Prof. B..5B.. Wart teid,’. 


BU PLO 28 

Gore, Charles, 1853-1932. 

Dissertations on subjects 
connected with the 





4 


Hf he i 


bat 
Ae Raid 3 Y 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/dissertationson0Ogore 





DISsk era LON S 





ree p " 


N ‘ pote 


Prooemt 2: TIONS 


ON * J L 1 ‘. 1 


~_— > © ee 


f), ‘ 
” J f- ‘ 
cg /) = ae 
NLogig 4 ot 


Sos eOlor CONNECTED Wil 


EE CENCAR NA BRON, 


BY 


CHARLES GORE, MA. 


CANON OF WESTMINSTER 


OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE RESURRECTION, RADLEY 


Neque sit mihi inutilis pugna verborum 


sed incunctantis fidei constans professio 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
153-187 FIFTH AVENUE 
1895 





FRATRI ADMODUM DILECTO 


RICCARDO RACK AAM 


BENEVOLENTISSIMO LABORUM ADIUTORI 


IN VERITATE EXPLORANDA CURIOSISSIMO 











Nae? 1 fa oy 

Io. oo o #. 

; ; a ty vy = i as, ae (iD, . 
eds ph * ae mee 


bal em eps Ge we 


n a, ere | i ‘ 7 yr 


IE) al Bgl ea Oy 2) 


THESE dissertations are the fulfilment, after a much 
longer delay than I anticipated, of an intention 
expressed in the preface to the Bampton Lectures of 
1891 to prepare a supplementary volume addressed 
to a more strictly theological public. Circumstances 
however have now led to the selection of a set of 
subjects not altogether identical with those then 
indicated. The amount of discussion which arose 
in connexion with my lectures as to our Lord’s 
human consciousness has rendered necessary a 
prolonged treatment of the theology of the New 
Testament and of the Church on this subject. A dis- 
sertation on the rise of the transubstantiation dogma 
followed naturally from this special treatment of the 
theology of the Incarnation; and recent controversy 
has rendered desirable a more elaborate discussion 


viii Preface. 


of our Lord’s birth of a virgin. Under these circum- 
stances ‘the early Greek theology of the supernatural 
in its relation to nature’ and ‘the relation of Ebion- 
ism and Gnosticism to the theology of the New 
Testament and of the second century’ only come in 
for incidental treatment. 

In the first dissertation—on our Lord’s birth of 
a virgin—I have tried to give the first place to the 
presentation of the positive case for this article of 
the Christian creed, and only the second to resolving 
objections or considering possible rival theories. 
Hence I have said nothing about such a theory as 
that of Holtzmann', of different documents used by 
St. Luke in his first two chapters and of interpo- 
lations and alterations made in the use of them— 
a theory which seems to rest on purely a priort 
grounds. It seems to me that, to justify a distinction 
of various ‘sources’ used by a compiler, we need 
either very distinct evidences of style (such as the 
difference between St. Luke’s own style, 1. 1-4, and 
that of his ‘source’ beginning at 1. 5), or very 
violent inconsistencies, or phenomena apparent 
over a large area, as in the case of the Hexateuch. 
If the area is small, the difference of style not plain, 
and the narrative fairly self-consistent, the proposed 
distinction becomes at once arbitrary. Critics of 


1 Handcommentar zum N. T, (Freiburg, 1889) bd. i. pp. 13, 46. 


Preface. ix 


documents, especially biblical documents, appear to 
me very seldom to know where to stop in their 
analysis. 

I owe to the Rev. G. A. Cooke, of Magdalen, the 
substance of the note on pp. 39-40. Huis diligent 
investigation of the sources of a statement current 
in modern apologetic literature has, I fear, decisively 
pricked a small but somewhat interesting bubble. 

In the second dissertation—on our Lord’s con- 
sciousness aS man—my excuse for so much quotation 
lies in the necessity for bringing under the eye of the 
reader the inadequacy 7” one respect of much of the 
patristic and all the mediaeval theology. There has 
not hitherto existed any adequate cafena of theologians 
on this subject. I hope I shall be pardoned if a lack 
of complete consistency is noticed in regard to the 
translation of patristic passages. In any case I have 
produced all important passages or phrases in the 
original language. I cannot but hope that in this 
dissertation I shall have satisfied one or two of 
those whose approval I am most anxious to keep 
or to regain. 

In regard to the third essay, I have thought that 
the lack of sufficiently exact histories of eucharistic 
doctrine justified a detailed statement of the rise of 
the theory and dogma of transubstantiation. But 
I must ask that it should be remembered that, if 
information outside the period professedly covered 1s 


x Preface. 


incidentally given, I do not profess to cover more in 
detail than the period from a.p. 800 to 1215. 

In the preparation of these dissertations for the 
press I owe thanks for help to my brothers, the Rev. 
Thomas Barnes and the Rev. Richard Rackham. 
To the latter I owe more than I can well express, 
and particularly the appended note on the Codex 
Sinaiticus and the preparation of the Table of Con- 
tents and of the indices of scriptural passages and of 
names. He has added to the latter a few dates which 
will, it is hoped, increase its usefulness. 


CA 


RADLEY VICARAGE, 
St. James’ Day, 1895. 


Ce ENTS 


THE. VIRGIN BIRTH OF OUR’ EORD 


PAGE 


Subject andaim : : 3 
« i. Uhe silence of St. Mark, St. eee and St. Paul 
ot, Mark. : : , : : : 6 
St, John . ; : ; ; , ; : : 7, 
st. Paul. , ; : : : : : 7.) 10 
§ 2. The narrative of St. Luke 
its origin and trustworthiness . ° ‘ , Pe: 
objections: (1) the census ‘ , ‘ i, a alo 
(2) angelic appearances . , : a. BE 


§ 3. The narrative of St. Matthew 


its origin : P ‘ : 28 
objections: (1) massacre of the innocents 29 
(2) influence of prophecy ER! 
$ 4. The relation of the two narratives 
(1) the historical outline 36 
(2) the genealogies 37 
§ 5. The tradition of the churches 
importance of tradition 41 
consensus of tradition found in 
Irenaeus Justin 43 
Ignatius Aristides - 46 
Alexandrians non-Catholic writings 47 
discordant teaching found in 
Cerinthus Ebionism . 49 
$ 6. The theory of legend 
the miraculous birth not 
due to legendary tendency . ; : ‘ GS 
a repetition of O. T. incident . : : 60 


derived from Philo’s language . : y 6x 


* 


xii Contents. 


§ 7. The connexion of doctrine and fact 
is inevitable 
(a) birth and personality : : 
(8) the Second Adam and a new creation. 


Conclusion 
and its relation to church authority . 


THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR LORD IN HIS 


MORTAL LiFe 


The subject 
its relation to Cia fen 
spirit in which it should be studied (aie 


i: 


THE VIEW OF OUR LORD’S CONSCIOUSNESS DURING HIS 
HUMAN AND MORTAL LIFE WHICH IS PRESENTED IN 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


\ 1. The evidence of the Gospels 
picture of a human growth : 
with assertion of divine sonship and euntbilicy 
but evidence of a limitation of knowledge 
(1) human experiences— interrogation, prayer 
(2) St. Matt. xxiv. 36 wezther the Son. 
(3) testimony of St. John’s Gospel 
(4) argument from silence . 


The language of St. Paul 
self-emptying (Phil ii. 5-11) 
self-beggary (2 Cor. viil. 9) 
§ 3. An absolute xévwors not affirmed in the N. T. 
the eternal Word in St. John, St. Paul, the Hebrews 
silence as to an arrest of the Word’s divine functions 
§ 4. Provisional conclusion 
the Incarnation involves a real limitation . 
as opposed to 
dogmatical repudiation of ignorance . 
humanitarian assertion of fallibility 


PAGE 


71 
re 


88 


05 
95 


ie) 


©) 


Oo 


Contents. 


FT. 


THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN OPINION OUTSIDE THE 
CANON ON THE SUBJECT OF OUR LORD’S HUMAN 
CONSCIOUSNESS. 


. Preliminary. On the permanence in the Incarnation of 


the Godhead of Christ 
as taught by Irenaeus 
Origen . 
Eusebius 
Athanasius 
Proclus . 


. Early tradition and speculation on the special subject of 


the human consciousness of Christ 
tradition not definite on the subject . 
doctrine of Irenaeus : : 
Clement of Alexandria . 
Origen 


. The anti-Arian writers who admit a human ignorance 


Trinitarian controversies 
doctrine of Athanasius 
Gregory Nazianzen 
Basil 
Ambrose 


. Anti-Arian writers, especially of the west 


tendency of anti-Arian theology 
protest of Theodoret . 
doctrine of Hilary 

Jerome 

Augustine 


. The Apollinarian controversy 


lack of interest among Catholics 
doctrine of Gregory Nyssen 
The Nestorian controversy 
Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
zealous repudiation of Nestorianism . 
doctrine of Hilary 
Cyril 


X11 


PAGE 


xiv Contents. 


§ 7. The Monophysite controversy 
(1) vindication of the manhood not fruitful in result 
the Agnoetae and Leontius 
Eulogius 
Gregory. 
John Damascene 
Agobard and the Adoptionians’ in ine west 
(2) the Definition of Chalcedon leaves the two 
natures in simple juxtaposition 


§ 8. Mediaeval and scholastic theology 
determined against a real ignorance . 
refinements of Thomas Aquinas 
qualifications 
(1) hesitation as to what is de fide 
(2) decisions only as to matter of fact 
scholastic theology 
(1) mistaken in its use of church dogmas . 
(2) based on one-sided metaphysical idea of God 
derived from Greek philosophy 
through Dionysius Areop. and Erigena 
resulting in nihilianism 
as expressed in Peter Lombard 


§ 9. The theology of the Reformation 
a return to Scripture . 
theories of Luther 

the Reformed 
modern views 


(1) absolute kenotic— Godet. 
(2) partial kenotic— Fairbairn 
(3) double life— Martensen . 


(4) gradual incarnation—Dorner 


§ 10. Anglican theology 
its characteristics 
utterances of 
Hooker Andrewes Jeremy Taylor 
Bull Beveridge Waterland 
modern authorities 
Church Westcott Bright 


PAGE 


154 
155 
158 
159 
160 
161 


162 


166 
168 


169 
169 


170 
D7A 
173 
173 
175 
175 


179 
181 
182 


184 
189 


192 
193 


196 


196 
198 


199 


Contents. 


IIT. 


THE CONCLUSION OF THIS INQUIRY: THE RELATION 
OF THIS ‘CONCLUSION TO CHURCH AUTHORITY : ITS 
RATIONALITY. 


§ 1. Conclusion from our inquiry 
a real self-limitation in the Incarnation ; 
without abandonment of the divine functions in 
another sphere : 
fourfold appeal to opponents 


§ 2. The relation of our conclusion to ecclesiastical authority 
its consistence with ecumenical decrees 
in particular those of Nicaea 
Chalcedon ana CP y III 
reasons for defectiveness in patristic and scholastic 
theology . 


§ 3. The rationality of our conclusion 
(1) the inconceivable not necessarily the irrational 
(2) the power of sympathy. : 
(3) difference between divine and human Biowinaee 
(4) modern view of God’s relation to His creation 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND NIHILIANISM 


Subject and aim 
I. The growth of the doctrine of transubstantiation 


S. vill in the east, John of Damascus 
in the west 
retarding influence of Augustine 
reflected in Caroline theologians 


s.ix Paschasius Radbert’s teaching 
Rabanus Maurus opposes it 
Ratramn 5 
Hincmar, Haimo support it 

s. x1 the Berengarian controversy . 
Berengar’s position : 
Humbert’s decree (A. D. 1059) 


PAGE 


Xvi Contents. 


PAGE 

Lanfranc and Hugh of Langres_. ; : . 258 

Witmund : : ; : ; ; : : 258 

Durandus of Troarn : ‘ : . : . 263 

S. Xl Alger . : ; 5 : : ; 4 264 
Gregory of Bergamo 5 : : . 265 

Hildebert : : : : : ; : 4. 266 

Peter Lombard . , : : ‘ : . > 267 

A.D. 1215 the ikateran decree ; ‘ : : ; ; 266 


1]. The metaphysical theory and philosophical principle involved 
three objections 

(1) no scriptural or primitive authority. , s | 266 

(2) metaphysical difficulty. : : : ; \. 270 

not the same with the omoouston doctrine . 272 

doctrinal outcome of materialistic conception . 271 


(3) it violates the principle of the Incarnation . +272 
as stated by Irenaeus ; ; : ‘ e27s 
Leontius : F ; 5 See 


III. Nihilianism the background of the theory of transubstantiation 
nihilianism prevalent in early middle ages . : aq 279 
=transubstantiation in relation to the Incarnation . 281 
the dogmatic barriers of the Incarnation doctrine 


were wanting in the case of the eucharist . 263 
reasons for not accepting transubstantiation 
even inarefined sense. : , : A . 284 


APPENDED NOTES 


A. Supposed Jewish expectation of the Wee birth ; . (289 
B. The readings of Codex Sinaiticus . : > 202 
C. On the patristic interpretation of St. jana: vi. ap + 308 


1). Tertullian’s doctrine of the eucharist : : : . 308 


DISSE R TA PON! 





THE VIRGIN, BIRTH OF OUR 
LOK D 


AMONG subjects of present controversy not the least 
important is the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. It is not 
only that naturalistic writers frequently speak as if it 
were unmistakeably a fable ; but writers who do in some 
sense believe in the Incarnation are found at times to 
imply that, while the Resurrection must be held to, the 
Virgin Birth had better be discarded from the position of 
an historical fact. And even writers of a more orthodox 
character are occasionally found to speak of it with some 
considerable degree of doubt or disparagement?. Such 
rejection or doubt is in part based upon the silence, or 
presumed silence, on the subject of two of the evangelists, 
St. Mark and St. John, also of the apostolic epistles, 
especially those of St. Paul. In part it is held to be 
justified by discrepancies between the accounts of the birth 

1 See, as examples of these classes, Renan, Les Zvangiles (Paris, 1877) 
pp. 188 ff., 278 ff.; Meyer, Commentary on St. Matthew, i. 18 (Clark’s 
trans.); Zhe Kernel and the Husk (Macmillan, 1886) pp. 267 ff.; 
Dr. A. Harnack, Das Afost. Glaubensbekenntniss (Berlin, 1892) pp. 35 ff. 
This pamphlet is part of a considerable agitation in Germany, and repre- 
sents a widespread tendency in that country. The tendency is certainly 


abroad among Christians at home, though perhaps at present more in 
conversation than in literature. 


B 2 


4 Dissertations. 


in St. Matthew and St. Luke; and by circumstances 
which are supposed to render those accounts unworthy 
of the credit of serious critics. At the same time it is 
often maintained that the belief in the Incarnation is not 
bound up with the belief in the virginity of Mary: and 
that, even if this latter point were rejected or held an 
open question, we could still believe Jesus Christ to be 
not as other men, but the Son of God incarnate’. This 
latter belief in the person of Christ is, it is maintained, 
legitimate as warranted by His claims, His miracles, His 
resurrection, His kingdom; but it does not therefore 
follow that legend may not have gathered around the 
circumstances of His birth. There is analogy, it is 
suggested, for such an accretion in the birth-stories 
of innumerable heroes, both Jewish and Gentile, from 
Buddha, Zoroaster, and Samson downwards to Augustus 
and John the Baptist. 

In view of this tendency of thought, I will endea- 
vour— 

(1) to account for the silence of St. Mark, St. John, 
and St Paul.-so far as it is:a fact; while at the same 
time indicating evidence which goes to show that these 
writers did in reality recognize the fact of the Virgin 
Birth ; 

(2) to justify the claim of Luke i-ii to contain 
serious history ; 

(3) to do the same for Matt. i-ii taken by itself; 

(4) to indicate the relation of the two accounts ; 


1 See quotations in Dr. A. B. Bruce’s Afologetics (Clark, 1892) pp. 408, 
409; and cf. Dr. Fairbairn, Christ i Modern Theology (Hodder & 
Stoughton, 1893) pp. 346, 347. I do not understand Dr. Fairbairn to 
express any doubt as to the fact of the virgin birth. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 5 


(5) to show cause for believing that the Virgin Birth 
has in Christian tradition from the first been held insepar- 
able from the truth of the Incarnation ; 

(6) to deal with the argument derived from the 
birth-legends of heroes ; 

(7) to show cause for believing that the doctrine of 
the person of Christ is in reality inseparable from the 
fact of His birth of a virgin. 

First however it is necessary to make plain the point 
at which this argument begins, and the class of persons 
towards whom it is addressed. I am assuming the 
substantial historical truth of the evangelical narrative 
common to the three synoptists and supplemented by 
St. John: I am assuming the reality of the physical 
resurrection and, accordingly, the possibility of miracles 
and their credibility on evidence: I am assuming that 
Jesus Christ really was the Son of God incarnate. One 
who entertains doubts on these matters must satisfy him- 
self by considerations preliminary to our present under- 
taking ', just as in the beginning of Christianity the belief 
in Jesus as the Son of God was, as will be presently 
explained, prior to the knowledge of His Virgin Birth. 
The question now is,—granted the miraculous personality 
of Christ and His resurrection, granted the idea of the 
Incarnation to be the right interpretation of His person, 
is there still reason to doubt the historical character of 
the miracle of the birth, and is it reasonable to imagine 
that such doubt will be compatible with a prolonged 
hold on the belief in the Incarnation itself ? 


1 Such considerations I have endeavoured to present in summary in the 
Lampton Lectures for 1891 (Murray) lect. i, ii, iii. 


6 Dissertations. 


ear: 
The silence of St. Mark, St. John, and St. Paul. 


The original function of the apostles was mainly that 
of eye-witnesses. It was therefore necessarily limited by 
the period of the public ministry of our Lord, during 
which period alone they had ‘companied with him, i. e. 
from the days of John the Baptist till the time when He 
was taken up into heaven. To have allowed their original 
preaching to go behind the limit of this period would 
have been to abandon a real principle of Christianity, 
the principle that it was to rest upon the personal 
testimony of men who in company with one another 
had passed through a prolonged experience of the words 
and works of Jesus of Nazareth, of the circumstances of 
His death and the reality of His resurrection. To have 
gone outside this period of personal witness would have 
been, I say, to abandon a principle; and there can 
therefore be no question that the original ‘teaching of 
the apostles’ did not and could not include the Virgin 
Birth?. If we accept the trustworthy tradition which 

1 See Acts 1.8, 21, 1. 32, ii, 15, x. 99; St. Luke i. 24) St. John 1.24, 
ey a7. xxl. 24 5) ebro: 

* It is plain that Joseph and Mary must have kept this event secret 
from the world and their neighbours. When it was known through Christian 
preaching, it led to slander, disagreeable even to think of, but widely 
current in the second century. See Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 189 ‘La fable 


grossiére inventée par les adversaires du christianisme, qui faisait naitre 
Jésus d’une ayenture scandaleuse avec le soldat Panthere (Acta Pilati, 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 7 


makes St. Mark’s Gospel represent the preaching of Peter 
—the part of his experience which he embodied in his 
primary instruction—we shall see at once why the 
Gospel of Mark does not carry us behind the preaching 
of John the Baptist. It needs to be remarked, over and 
above this, that St. Mark in one passage exhibits a notice- 
able difference as compared with St. Matthew and 
ot. buke:, Where St. Matthew has. ‘Is not this the 
carpenter’s son?’ and St. Luke ‘Is not this the son of 
Joseph?’ St. Mark writes ‘Is not this the carpenter?’ 
It is probable that of these two expressions, St. Mat- 
thew’s (as corroborated by St. Luke) is primary, and 
St. Mark’s secondary; and that the alteration in St. 
Mark must be attributed to an unwillingness to suggest 
—even in the surprised questioning of the Jews—the 
proper parentage of Joseph, where nothing had been 
previously given to prevent misunderstanding, as in 
St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels ?. 

As to St. John, it seems to me quite impossible to 


A. 2; Celse, dans Origene, Coztre Celse, i. 28, 32; Talm. de Jér. Schaé- 
bath, xiv. 4; Aboda zara, ii. 2; Midrasch Koh. x. 5, &c.), sortit sans trop 
d’effort du récit chrétien, récit qui présentait a l’imagination le tableau 
choquant d’une naissance ot le pére n’avait qu’un role apparent. Cette 
fable ne se montre clairement qu’au II® siécle; des le I°™, cependant, les 
juifs paraissent avoir malignement présenté la naissance de Jésus comme 
illégitime.” It appears that Paxthera is only in fact an anagram for 
Parthenos: see Rendel Harris, Zexts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891), 
Vol: J2/nGs 1: ps.’ 25. 

ot, Matt. xii 55°7 St. Mark viz 3 ¢ St, Luke-iv. 22: 

? So Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Bleek, quoted by Weiss, Handbuch tiber 
Evang. Markusund Lukas, on Mark vi. 3. St. Luke (ii. 48) allows a parallel 
expression, ‘ Thy father and I,’ where it is liable to no misconception. 
So also St. John (i. 45 ‘ Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’), writing at 
a later period, when, I believe, the common teaching of the Church was 
well established. 


8 Dissertations. 


believe that he was ignorant of the Virgin Birth of our 
Lord. Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch in Syria 
a very few years after the writing of the fourth Gospel, 
calls the virginity of Mary a ‘mystery of loud procla- 
mation’ in the Church?!: it could not have been other- 
wise considering the currency which the first and third 
Gospels, and still more the materials of those Gospels, 
had already obtained. More than this: we know on 
very high authority (that of Polycarp, John’s disciple, 
as quoted by Irenaeus?) that St. John was in sharp 
opposition to the gnostic teacher, Cerinthus. Cerinthus, 
like all Gnostics, denied the rea] Incarnation. He 
distinguished between the higher being, the spiritual 
Christ, and the human Jesus. He supposed the man 
Jesus to have been born in the ordinary way of Joseph 
and Mary, and to have been the most perfect of all men ; 
he supposed the divine Christ to have descended upon 
him after his baptism and to have left him before his 
passion ®. Cerinthus thus denied both the real Incar- 
nation and the miraculous birth. St. John’s whole force 
is thrown into the affirmation of the real Incarnation. 
He cannot have been ignorant that the denial of the 
Incarnation was associated with the denial of the 
miraculous birth. We may ask then, (1) Was he 
indifferent to this latter? (2) If not, does he give any 
indications that he believed in it? (3) Why did he not 
narrate it at length? I should answer thus: (1) He was 
not indifferent to it, but, as in the case of the institution of 
baptism and of the eucharist*, he supplies the justifying 


1 See below, p. 46. ® cones Laer iis 3) a 
*Tren..con. fiaer. 1. 26.1. * St. John iii. 3-8, vi. 53-65. 


Lhe Virgin Birth of our Lord. 9 


principle—in this case the principle of the Incarnation — 
without supplying what was already current and well 
known, the record of the fact. The denial of the fact 
had been but the result of the denial of the principle. 
Granted the principle, the belief in the fact would follow in- 
evitably. (2) He does give indications that he recognized 
the fact. Inthe scene of the marriage-supper at Cana, 
before the first miracle had yet been wrought, he shows 
Mary, our Lord’s mother, manifestly expecting of her 
son miraculous action, manifestly regarding Him as 
a miraculous person’. There is no such natural expla- 
nation of this as that St. John regarded her as conscious 
from the first of His miraculous origin and nature. Once 
more: St. John’s mind is full of the correspondence 
between ‘the Son’ and the other ‘sons’ of God, be- 
tween Christ and the Church. One main motive of his 
Apocalypse is to exhibit the Church passing through 
the phases of the life of Christ: - Like Him it is born, 
suffers, dies, rises, ascends?. When St. John then gives 
us the picture of ‘a woman arrayed with the sun and 
the moon under her feet,’ who brings forth ‘a son, 
a male thing,’ and other ‘seed’ besides *, he is probably 
presenting the idea of the true Jerusalem, ‘the mother 
of us all,’ bringing forth into the world the Christ 
and His people. But there is a retrospect, or depend- 
ence, which can hardly be disputed, upon Mary the actual 
mother of Jesus, the Christ. The more sure one feels 
of this, and the more one dwells upon the parallelism 
exhibited throughout these chapters between the Head 


’ St. John ii. 3-5. + Rev. Bik, 19, 1; 7-12: 
*RCY.. Xl; Tgiee V7 


10 Dissertations. 


and His body, the more disposed one is to see in the 
picture of the dragon who watches to destroy the new- 
born child and the flight of the woman into the 
wilderness! a mystically-worded? retrospect upon the 
hostile action of Herod who sought the young child’s 
life to destroy him %, i.e. a recognition of the history of 
the nativity as given in St. Matthew. (3) It would 
have been impossible for St. John, consistently with 
the main purpose of his Gospel, to have recorded the 
Virgin Birth, for his Gospel is, before all else, a personal 
testimony. It is the old man’s witness to what he saw 
and heard when he was young, and had brooded and 
meditated upon through his long life. This witness he 
now leaves on record, at the earnest request of those 
about him, and for the necessities of the Church. Such 
a Gospel must have begun where personal experience 
began. 

Once more with regard to St. Paul—it is a well- 
known fact that his epistles are almost exclusively 
occupied in contending for Christian principles, not in 
recalling facts of our Lord’s life. His function was that 
of the theologian rather than that of the witness. One 
conclusion from this might be that St. Paul was ignorant 
of, or indifferent to, the facts of our Lord’s life. But we 
are restrained from this conclusion by the evidence which 


+ Rev. xii. 13;/ta. 

? It should be noticed that the account of the death, resurrection, &c. 
of the ‘ two witnesses” who represent the Church in xi. 7-12 contains many 
points of aifference from the actual history of the parallel events in our 
Lord’s case, as well as many points of similarity. The relation of the 
‘mystical’ and actual accounts of the death and resurrection is similar to 
the relation of the two accounts of the birth and early persecution. 

eet. att. i. 22. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. II 


he gives at least on two occasions when his argument 
compels him to recall to the Corinthians his first 
preaching and he recalls it each time in the form of 
an evangelical narrative’. We learn from this that St. 
Paul’s first preaching contained at least a considerable 
element of evangelical narrative. Of all the contents 
of this narrative we cannot be sure: it is not impossible 
that it made reference to the miraculous birth of Jesus. 
But it would be foolish to maintain this in the absence 
of direct evidence. What we can maintain, with great 
boldness, is that St. Paul’s conception of the ‘Second 
Adam’ postulates His miraculous birth. ‘Born of 
a woman, ‘born of the seed of David according to the 
flesh 2’ He was yet ‘from heaven ®’: born of a woman, 
He was yet a new head of the race, sinless, free fo ae 
Adam’s sin ; a new starting-point for humanity *. Now 
considering how strongly St. Paul expresses the idea of 
the solidarity of man by natural descent, and the con- 
sequent implication of the whole human race in Adam’s 
fall®, his belief in the sinless Second Adam seems to me 
to postulate the fact of His Virgin Birth ; the fact, that 
is, that He was born in such a way that His birth was 
a new creative act of God. On this connexion of ideas, 


1 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, xv. 3-8. 2 Gal. iv: 42 Romeigs 

3 1 Cor. xv. 47. 6 devrepos dvOpwros é€ ovpavot has been interpreted of 
Christ at His second coming. But it describes the ov¢gz of the second 
man, being parallel to ‘the first man is of the earth earthy,’ and must 
therefore be referred to His first coming. 

*s21@ orev: 25) Rom. vs 12=27 5 © Tink ib 5. 

5 Rom. v. 12-21, especially the phrase é¢’ @ mdvres fuaprov. Cf. Acts 
Xvii. 26 émoinoey é¢ Evds Trav €Ovos avOpwrwv : I Cor. xv. 48 oios 6 xotKds, 
TowovTa Kal of xolixot: Eph. iv. 22, and Col. iii. g 6 madatds dvOpwmos, 
which is morally corrupt. 


12 Dissertations. 


however, more will need to be said when we come to 
deal with the relation of the Virgin Birth to the idea of 
the Incarnation. 

The ‘argument from silence’ then, so far as it is based 
on the facts, appears to be a weak argument, because 
it gains its strength from ignoring the character and 
conditions of the “silent” records. At least their 
silence suggests no presumption against the veracity of 
the records that are not silent, supposing that they 
present valid credentials, considered in themselves. Ac- 
cordingly we proceed to the consideration of these 
records, that is, the narratives of the Virgin Birth in the 
first two chapters of the first and third Gospels. 


§ 2. 
The narrative of St. Luke. 


Suppose a Christian of the earliest period instructed, 
like Theophilus, in the primitive oral ‘tradition’ of the 
Christian society ; suppose him familiar with the sort 
of narrative that is presented to us in St. Mark’s Gospel 
of the words and deeds of Jesus, and convinced of His 
Messiahship and divine sonship,—such an one would 
beyond all question have become inquisitive about the 
circumstances of the Master’s birth. The inquiry must 
have been general and must have arisen very speedily. 
Let us transfer ourselves in imagination to that earliest 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 13 


period, of not less than about five years, before the perse- 
cution which arose about the death of Stephen, when 
the band of Christians in Jerusalem were continuing 
steadfastly and quietly in the ‘apostles’ teaching,’ and 
constant repetition was forming the oral Gospel which 
underlies the earliest evangelical documents ; we cannot 
conceive that period passing without inquiry, systematic 
inquiry, into the circumstances of our Lord’s birth. 
Now at the beginning of that period the Mother was 
with the apostolic company. She may well—for all 
we know—have continued with them to the end of it. 
The Lord’s ‘ brethren’ too were there’. There was no 
difficulty, then, in obtaining trustworthy information. 
Joseph and Mary masz have been silent originally as to 
the conditions of the birth of Jesus, for reasons obvious 
encugh. They could only have ‘kept the things and 
pondered them in their hearts.’ But in the apostolic 
circle, in the circle of witnesses and believers, the reasons 
for silence were gone: Mary would have told the tale 
of His birth. 

Now in St. Luke’s Gospel—to take that Gospel first— 
we are presented with an obviously early and Jewish 
narrative containing an account of the birth of Jesus, 
imcorporated and used by St. Luke. If then Sti duuke 
is believed to be trustworthy in his use of documents, if 
the account given is credible considered in itself, there 
is no difficulty at all in perceiving from what source 


1 There is, however, nothing improbable in the hypothesis that the 
‘brethren’ did not originally share the secret of Joseph and Mary as to the 
virgin birth. (The more probable view, as it seems to me, is that which 
makes the ‘ brethren’ half-brothers of our Lord, children of Joseph by 
a former marriage.) 


14 Dissertations. 


originally it could have been derived and from what 
epoch its information could date. 

Now when we examine the opening chapters of St. 
Luke, almost the first thing that strikes us is the contrast 
in style between the elaborate preface of the evangelist’s 
own writing and the narrative to which he immediately 
passes. There can be no doubt that in the narrative 
of the nativity, St. Luke—writing, shall we say with 
Dr. Sanday, about A.D. 80!—is using an Aramaic 
document’. But is St. Luke trustworthy in his use of 
early documents? The ground on which we can best 
test this is the Acts of the Apostles. I assume—what 
I think is the only reasonable view—that St. Luke 
wrote the Acts as a whole: that he is the fellow- 
traveller of St. Paul in the later portion *, and that for 
the earlier portion, the Jerusalem period, he has been 
dependent upon information and documents supplied by 
others—probably by Philip the Evangelist and by some 
one—possibly Manaen or Joanna the wife of Chuza— 
connected with the court of the Herods*. Has he then 


* See Sanday, Bampton Lectures for 1893 (Longmans) pp. 277 ff.; Book 
by Book (Isbister, 1892) pp. 366, 404. 

* See Weiss, Markus und Lukas, p. 239 ‘Die hebraisirende Diction 
der Vorgeschichte sticht gegen das classische Griechisch des Vorworts so 
augenfallig ab, dass hier die Benutzung einer schriftlichen Quelle kaum 
geleugnet werden kann.’ Godet, Sazwt Luc, i. 85 ‘Il travaille sur des 
documents antiques, dont il tient a conserver aussi fidelement que pos- 
sible le coloris araméen.’ Sanday, ook by Book, p. 399. Cf. also Ryle 
and James, Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1891), p. lx 
‘The writings which, in our opinion, most nearly approach our Psalms 
in style and character are the hymns preserved in the early chapters 
of St. Luke’s Gospel, which in point of date of composition probably 
stand nearer to the Psalms of Solomon (B.C. 70-40) than any other portion 
of the New Testament.’ 5 Acts xvi. 10-18, xx. 6 to the end. 

* Cf. Sanday, Book by Book, p. 399 ‘Most of the occasions on which 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 15 


shown himself in this collection and use of documents 
a trustworthy historian? This question we answer with 
a very emphatic affirmative. If Prof. Ramsay has 
summed up the verdict of recent inquiry as to the his- 
torical trustworthiness of the Pauline period of the Acts, 
not less certainly does it seem to me that recent inquiry 
has gone to confirm the historical worth of the early 
chapters. The situation of the first Christians in Jeru- 
salem: their preoccupation, not with the questions of 
Pauline or Johannine theology, but simply with Jesus as 
Messiah, and as fulfilling in His death and resurrection 
the prophecies of the Messiah: the moral brilliancy 
and yet simplicity of the first development of the 
Church: the exact relation in which Pharisees with their 
zeal for the law, and Sadducees in their hostility to 
a resurrection doctrine, and their preoccupation with the 
political situation, would stand to the new movement! : 


we hear of St. Luke have their scene at a distance from Palestine ; but at 
one time he would seem to have been for fully two years within the limits 
of the Roman province which bore that name. He accompanied St. Paul 
on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, stayed with him for some time 
at the house of Philip the “‘ Evangelist” at Caesarea, went up with him to 
Jerusalem, and, as we infer, remained not far away from his person during the 
time of his later confinement at Caesarea.’ Philip the Evangelist—one of 
the Seven—must have had an intimate acquaintance with the events of the 
early period of the Jerusalem Church. Again, ‘St. Luke displays a special 
knowledge of matters relating to the court of the Herods. He mentions by 
name a woman whom none of the other evangelists mentions, ‘‘ Joanna the 
wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward ” [Luke viii. 3], and in like manner in the 
Acts he speaks of Manaen, “‘ foster-brother of Herod” [Acts xiii. 1, one of 
the “ prophets” or “teachers” at Antioch]. Here we have a glimpse of 
a circle from which St. Luke probably got his account of’ events connected 
with the Herods. 

1 See, for the Sadducees, Acts iv. 1, v. 17, 24; for the Pharisees, with 
the scribes and common people, v. 34, vi. 12 f., vii. 54 ff.; for both 
together, ix. 1; for their divergence, xxiii. 6 ff. 


16 Dissertations. 


the circumstances out of which arose the appointment 
of the Seven: the personality, work, and speech of 
Stephen—all this is represented in such a way as 
guarantees the faithful correspondence of the narrative 
with the actual situation ; in other words, in such a way 
as guarantees that St. Luke is trustworthy in his use of 
his information and his documents. The study of the 
Acts, then, sends us back to the Gospel with a greatly 
invigorated belief in St. Luke’s trustworthiness in his 
use of documents. We examine further the document 
of the nativity, and we find not only that it is Aramaic, 
but that it breathes the spirit of the Messianic hope, 
before it had received the rude and crushing blow 
involved in the rejection of the Messiah. The Fore- 
runner is ‘to make ready a people prepared for the 
Lord'.’ The Child is to have ‘the throne of his father 
David,’ and to ‘reign over the house of Jacob for ever *.’ 
God hath ‘holpen Israel his servant, that he might 
remember mercy (as he spake unto our fathers) toward 
Abraham and his seed for ever *.’ He hath ‘ visited and 
wrought redemption for his people, and hath raised up 
a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant 
David, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of 
all that hate us*’ It is the hope of ‘ the redemption of 
Jerusalem®’ that is to be gratified. Now all this language 
of prophecy does indeed admit of interpretation in the 
light of subsequent facts. St. Paul could justify to the 
Jews the actual result out of their own Scriptures®. But 
it is not the sort of language that early Jewish Christians 


it a 4 8 2 198 2 ea 5 54, aa he 
* i. 68-71. oli e. § Romans ix-xi. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 17 


would have invented after the rejection of the Christ. It 
contrasts very markedly with the language of St. Peter’s 
speccuesan the Acts tor of St: Stephen, or of ‘St: Paul?, 
of ofvoe James*, of7ot St. John ®: No doubt in the 
language of Simeon the coming of the Christ is ‘a light 
for revelation to the Gentiles, as well as ‘the glory of 
God's people Israel.’ He too alone among the speakers 
of these opening chapters sees that the crisis is to be 
anxious and searching. He ‘said unto Mary his mother, 
Behold, this child is set for the falling and rising up of 
many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against ; 
yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul ; 
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed °’ 
But these are notes so often struck in the Old Testament 
that they must have found some echo in the immediate 
anticipation of the work of the Child. They are like 
the warnings of John the Baptist’. But they do not 
anticipate the disastrous result. They do not forecast 
wholesale rejection ; they only just interpose a note of 
moral anxiety in the general tone of hopeful exaltation. 
Nor is it unnecessary to observe that the conception of 
the person of our Lord in these chapters is purely Mes- 
sianic®’. He is to ‘be great.and shall be called the Son of 


! See iii, 12-26, iv. 11, 25-28. 2 Acts vii. 51, 52. 

3 Acts xiii. 46: 1 Thess. ii. 14-16. 

4 St. James v. 6. 5 St. John xii. 37-43. 
o St, Luke il, 31-35. 7 St. Loketit. 8; 


§ The distinction however between the Messianic and the divine con- 
ception of our Lord must not be pressed too far. It is true that the Jewish 
thought of our Lord’s time did not anticipate a divine Messiah. ‘The 
Messianic king of the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (c. 60 B.C.) does not 
rise above the human limit: and the ‘Son of Man’ coming in glory as 
found in the Book of Enoch (by interpretation of Daniel vii. 13)— probably 


Gg 


18 Dissertations. 


the Highest.’ He shall be called ‘holy, the Son of God,’ 
because ‘the Holy Ghost shall come upon’ His mother, 
‘and the power of the Most High shall overshadow ’ 
her!. Mary is made to understand that the child whom 
she is to bear is to be the product of miraculous divine 
agency and is to be the exalted Messiah, but the 
doctrine of the Incarnation, strictly speaking, is not more 
to be found here than in the early speeches of the Acts. 

Here then is an account which presents phenomena 
practically irreconcilable with the hypothesis that it 
was an invention of the early Jewish Christian imagina- 
tion; an account which may well be Mary's account ; 
which must be Mary’s, in origin, if it is genuine; and 
which is given to us by a recorder of proved trust- 
worthiness, who moreover makes a point of ‘having 
traced the course of all things accurately from the first.’ 
Finally it is an account which there is no evidence to 
show the zmagination of any early Christian capable of 
producing, for its consummate fitness, reserve, sobriety 
and loftiness are unquestionable. Is there then any 
good reason against accepting it?? 


a pre-Christian idea—is neither properly divine nor properly human. But 
the highest Old Testament idea of the divine and human Messiah could 
not, we may venture to say, have been realized and combined with the idea 
of the servant of Jehovah, except by the eternal Son of God made very 
man. TZhus in our Lord’s own thought and language there ts no line of 
demarcation between the Messianic and the Divine claim. To go no further, 
a strictly divine meaning is given to the function of the Son of Man as 
judge of the world. And the apostles and first disciples were carried on 
insensibly from the confession ‘Thou art the Christ of God’ to the further 
confession ‘My Lord and my God.’ See on the subject generally Stanton’s 
Jewish and Christian Messiah (Clark, 1886). 

1 St. Luke i. 32, 35. 

2 Of course discrepancies with St. Matthew might discredit either it 
or St. Matthew’s account; but these are considered later. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 19 


1. It is often alleged that the notice of ‘the first en- 
rolment (or census), made when Quirinius was governor 
of Syria! is unhistorical. 

This objection had its full force when secular history 
recognized no Syrian governorship of Quirinius until 
just before the time when Judaea became a Roman 
province, when a ‘census’ was certainly made (A. D. 6)”. 
But Quirinius’ earlier governorship is now, chiefly 
through the labours of Bergmann and Mommsen, recog- 
nized as probable. The case may be fairly stated thus °. 

Publius Su!picius Quirinius was probably governor 
of Syria (legatus Augusti pro praetore) for the first time 
between B.C. 4-2, but certainly after, not before, the 
death of Herod (which occurred in B.c. 4)*. 

There is no record, independent of St. Luke’s, of any 
‘census’ (azoypady) of the Jews till that which took 
place during Quirinius’ second legation, and is mentioned 
by Josephus. But St. Luke elsewhere alludes to this later 
census °, and apparently intends to distinguish an earlier 
one from the later by the phrase he here uses, ‘the first 
census ® under Quirinius.’ 

The phrase ‘there went out a decree from Caesar 

2 ots Wouke: ii,.2; 

? Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire (Eng. trans., Bentley, 1886) 
il. 185-7. 

* The matter has been discussed ad nauseam, as by Zumpt, Godet, 
Keim, Edersheim, Farrar, Geikie, Didon. See Dzct. of Bible, s. v. CYRE- 
NIus. In Farrar’s S¢. Luke (‘ Cambridge G. T. for Schools’) there is an 
excellert brief discussion of the matter. 

* Mommsen, Res gestae D. Augusti (Berlin, 1883) p. 177; Keim, Jesus 
of Nazara (Eng. trans., Williams & Norgate) ii. pp. 116 f. 

> Acts v. 37 €v Talis Hpépais THs amoypapys. 


® St. Luke ii. 2 airy dmoypapy mpwrn eyéveto Fyepovevovros THs Svpias 
Kupnviov. 


C2 


20 Dissertations. 


Augustus that a census be taken of all the world’ 
may well refer to the rationarium or breviarium of the 
empire which Augustus busied himself in drawing up, 
and which included allied kingdoms!. Herod, who 
was not only a ‘rex socius, but wholly dependent on 
the emperor’, may well have been forward to supply 
a census of his kingdom to please his master. At a 
somewhat later date we read in Tacitus of the subjects 
of an allied king (of Cappadocia) who were ‘compelled to 
submit to a census after our [the Romans’ | fashion and 
to pay tribute®.’ On the other hand, it is exceedingly 
improbable that any Christians would have znvented 
such an ignoble reason as an imperial census for bringing 
Joseph and Mary up to ‘ the city of David.’ 

It must be remembered that the chronological data of 
St. Luke ii and iii were in all probability supplied by 
himself and not by his ‘sources.’ We are, therefore, 
not at all concerned to deny that St. Luke may have 
been slightly wrong in his date ; for our Lord must have 
been born some months before the death of Herod and 


* Cf. Suet. Azgustus, cc. 28, 101 ‘rationarium imperii; breviarium 
totius imperii.. Tac. Azz. i. 11 ‘opes publicae continebantur, quantum 
civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut 
vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones, quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat 
Augustus.’ 

“ The evidence of the entire subjection of Herod to Augustus may 
be found in Josephus, Azz. xvi. 4. 1, 11. 1 (he seeks leave to try his sons, 
&c.), xvii. 2. 6 (mavtds yotv Tod “Iovéaixod BeBawoaytos Si’ Spkov 7H piv 
evvonoa Kaicap: kal Tots BaciAéws mpaypactv). Herod was often under the 
displeasure of Augustus, cf. xvi. 9. 3-4 (he threatens that having treated 
him as a friend, he shall in future treat him as a subject). 

* Tac. Ani. vi. 41 (A.D. 36) ‘Clitarum natio Cappadoci Archelao sub- 
iecta, quia nostrum in modum deferre census, pati tributa adigebatur, in 
iuga Tauri montis abscessit.’ 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 21 


therefore, as would seem certain, before the first governor- 
ship of Quirinius. It is noticeable that Tertullian? in 
fact attributes the ‘census’ to Sentius Saturninus, not 
to Quirinius. But it seems to me, especially in view of 
the deficiency of historical authorities for the period, that 
we display an exaggerated scepticism if we deny that so 
well-informed a writer as St. Luke may have been quite 
correct in ascribing the movement to Bethlehem of 
Joseph and Mary to some necessity connected with a 
‘census’ of Judaea which Herod was supplying at the 
demand of Augustus ?. 

2. Again, angelic appearances such as occur thrice 
in these chapters—to Zacharias, to Mary, and to the 
shepherds, are a scandal to some minds, and tend to 
discredit the whole narrative by giving it an air of 
ideality, that is, unreality. 

Now it is important not to allow this matter to assume 
an exaggerated importance. For to suppose such angelic 
appearances and communications as are related in these 
chapters to be imaginative outward representations of 
what were in fact real but merely inward communica- 
tions of the ‘divine word’ to human souls, is both a 


' adv. Marc. iv. 19 ‘ Census constat actos tunc [at the time of our Lord’s 
birth] in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum.’ [B.c. 8-6]. 

* It is remarkable how critics, like apologists, are apt to go for ‘ every- 
thing or nothing.’ St. Luke’s credibility is not disproved, if it is made 
probable that our Lord’s birth took place not at the beginning of Qui- 
rinius’ governorship but at the end of that of his predecessor. I ought to 
add, as I have quoted Mommsen in proof of the earlier governorship of 
Quirinius, that he denies that any census took place at that time. Indeed 
he uses somewhat strong language to express his resentment at his labours 
having become in any way available for apologists—‘homines theologi 
vel non theologi sed ad instar theologorum ex vinculis sermocinantes’ 


(ep...cat..: 130). 


22 Dissertations. 


possible course and one which is quite consistent with 
accepting the narrative as substantially historical and 
true. Noone who believes in God and His dealings with 
men, and who accepts the testimony of all the prophets 
as to ‘the word of the Lord”® coming to them 4 “can 
doubt the reality of substantive divine communications 
to man of a purely inward sort. Such an inward com- 
munication is recorded in these chapters to have been 
made to Elisabeth? and the angelic appearances to 
Joseph, recorded by St. Matthew’, are merely inward 
occurrences, i.e. they are intimations conveyed to his 
mind in sleep. No one, moreover, who knows human 
nature can doubt that such inward communications could 
be easily transformed by the imagination into outward 
forms. It is then quite conceivable that Zacharias on 
the solemn, the unique, occasion of his approaching God 
to offer the incense in the holy place *, did in answer to 
his earnest prayer, receive inwardly a divine intimation 
of a mysterious sort as to what was to befall him, such 
as made a vivid impression upon his mind, and even took 
effect upon his organs of speech—as mental shocks do 
produce physical effects—and that this divine intimation 
represented itself to his imagination in the outward form 
and voice of an angel. It is possible to give a similar 
interpretation to Mary’s vision, and to that of the shep- 
herds, though in this case the account would have to be 
more freely dealt with. There are no insuperable objec- 

' Sanday, Bampton Lectures, lect. iii. 

2 St. Luke i. 41-45. et. Matt i. 20; 1. 13, 5: 

* See Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (Longmans, 1884) i. p. 134 ‘only 


once in a lifetime might any one enjoy that privilege.’ 
St. Luke i. 13. 


Lhe Virgin Birth of our Lord. 23 


tions to a ‘ subjective vision’ theory in these cases such as 
do, unmistakeably, present themselves when the same 
theory is applied to the appearances of our Lord after 
the resurrection’, nor, as was said above, would such 
a theory, if accepted, affect the credibility of the narra- 
tive as a whole. The truth of the inward intimation 
was, on the hypothesis, proved by the subsequent facts : 
its form was recorded as it presented itself to the 
subject of it. 

And here, in a discussion which is concerned only 
with the substantial truth of these evangelical narra- 
tives, it might be wiser for me to leave the matter. But 
the present seems a suitable occasion to go on to ask 
whether it is really reasonable to find a scandal in 
angelic appearances? There can be no a priori objec- 
tion against the existence of such spiritual beings, good 
and bad, as angels and devils. Many of us would say that 
the phenomena of temptation, as experienced by them- 
selves, cannot be interpreted without a belief at least in 
the latter*. Above all, our Lord’s language certainly 

1 e.g. the empty tomb: the importance attached to the actual body 
and its peculiar features: the appearance to great groups of men simul- 
taneously : more than all, the fact that what reassured the disciples after 
the death and burial of their master—and in fact transformed their character 
and fundamentally altered their point of view—was no communication from 
God, but the actual and repeated appearance of the person of Jesus in the 
body. All the stress is on the fact. 

2 Cf. Dale, Lect. on the Ephestans (Hodder & Stoughton) pp. 422 f. § Evil 
thoughts come to us which are alien from all our convictions and all our 
sympathies. There is nothing to account for them in our external circum- 
stances or in the laws of our intellectual life. We abhor them and repel 
them, but they are pressed upon us with cruel persistency. They come to 
us at times when their presence is most hateful; they cross and trouble the 


current of devotion; they gather like thick clouds between our souls and 
God, and suddenly darken the glory of the divine righteousness and love. 


24 Dissertations. 


reaches the level of positive teaching about good, and 
still more about bad, spirits. As regards good spirits, not 
only does His language constantly associate angels with 
Himself in the coming and judicial work of the last 
day ', but He talks of them with explicit distinctness as 
beholding the face of God, as limited in knowledge of 
the great day, as without sensual natures, as attached to 
children, ministering to the souls of the dead, attendant 
on Himself at His request*. As regards evil spirits, 
He must Himself have related His own temptation to 
His disciples, in which the personal agency of Satan is 
vividly presented. He speaks with great simplicity of 
the devil as disseminating evil and hindering good’. He 
warns Peter of an explicit demand made by him upon 
the souls of the apostles*. He deals with demons with 
unmistakeable seriousness, emphasis, and frequency. 
He sees Satan behind moral and physical evil®. He 


We are sometimes pursued and harassed by doubts which we have 
deliberately confronted, examined, and concluded to be absolutely desti- 
tute of force, doubts about the very existence of God, or about the authority 
of Christ, or about the reality of our own redemption. Sometimes the 
assaults take another form. Evil fires which we thought we had quenched 
are suddenly rekindled by unseen hands: we have to renew the fight with 
forms of moral and spiritual evil which we thought we had completely 
destroyed.’ Cf. also Trench, Studies in the Gospels (Macmillan, 1878) 
p. 18 ‘ Assuredly this doctrine of an evil spirit . . . so far from casting 
a deeper gloom on the mysterious destinies of humanity. . . lights up with 
a gleam and glimpse of hope regions which would seem utterly dark 
without it.” And F. D. Maurice, Zhe Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven 
(Macmillan) lect. vi. 

+ St. Matt. xiii. 41, 49, xvi. 27, xxv. 31, and parallel passages; cf. St. 
Luke xii. 8. 

’.St. Matt. xviii. 10, xxiv. 36, xxzvi. 53; St. Mark xii. 255 St. Luke 
XVl. 22. 

* St. Matt. xiii. 39; St. Luke viii. 12. * St. Lake xxii. 31. 

° St. Luke xiii. 16; St. John viii. 44. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 25 


looks out upon the antagonism to good which the world 
presents and says ‘An enemy hath done this’. He 
recognizes the approach of evil spirits in the trial of the 
passion”. But He knows that the power of the forces 
of evil is really overthrown and their doom certain ’®. 
Now the question of diabolic agency and temptation 
is one which really concerns the permanent spiritual 
struggle of mankind. It is not, like questions of 
literature and science, one with which religion is not 
primarily mixed up. It is a matter of profoundly prac- 
tical religious interest. Is that which opposes itself 
to our efforts after God, whether individual or social, 
that which seems to lie behind all the wickednesses of 
particular men, and to organize evil broadly and con- 
tinuously—is it inevitable nature, an essential element 
in the constitution of things, is it in effect a rival God? 
or is it, on the other hand, an evil will, or kingdom of 
evil wills, hostile and active, but wholly subordinate to 
God and destined to be overthrown? To teach ignor- 
antly on such a matter, or to inculcate false impressions 
about it, would be most seriously inconsistent, I do 
not say with the personality of the incarnate Son of 
God, but even with the office of the Son of Man as 
spiritual teacher of all mankind, having a perfect insight 
into the spiritual condition of our human life. Nor is 
it possible to suppose that our Lord, without emphasiz- 
ing the existence of ‘spirits, connived in regard to it 
at popular belief and language, and, as it were, used the 


1 St. Matt. xiii. 28. See a very striking sermon in H. S. Holland’s God’s 
City (Longmans, 1894). 

2 St. Luke xxii. 53; St. John xiv. 30. 

8 St. Luke x.18; St. Matt. xii. 28, 29, xxv. 41. 


26 Dissertations. 


belief only so far as was necessary to render Himself 
intelligible. He did much more than this. Ona matter 
—the existence of angels and spirits—which appears to 
have been in controversy between Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees!, He must be regarded as having taken a side. 
Further, the teaching and method of Jesus Christ with 
regard to Satan and the ‘demons,’ when compared with 
current Jewish lore, exhibits a marked independence and 
originality owing to its entire freedom from elements 
of superstition. Our Lord in ‘exorcising’ demons 
appears as doing by simple moral authority what the 
Jewish exorcists did by incantations and charms”. On 
the whole, it is impossible to treat His language about 
spirits as ‘economical’ without giving profound unreality 
to His teaching as a whole. 

The present writer then dces not see how doubt 
about the existence and action of good and bad spirits 
is compatible with a real faith in Jesus Christ as the 
absolutely trustworthy teacher. There is nothing con- 
trary to reason in such a belief. That it should have 
been associated with a vast amount of superstition and 
credulity is no more an argument against its validity 

1 WACts Xxii6; 

* For Jewish exorcisms cf. Tobit vi. 16, 17 (Neubauer’s trans. from the 
Chaldee) ‘And when thou shalt come into the marriage-chamber with 
her, take the heart of the fish, and smoke thereof under her garments; and 
the demon shall smell it and he shall run away and never come again.’ 
Cf. Joseph. Anz. viii. 2. 5, Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 3. See further on Jewish 
belief in angels and demons, Charles’ Book of Enoch (Clar. Press, 1893) 
p. 52. That our Lord does at times use merely popular language about 
spirits is certain, as in St. Matt. xii. 43-45. There, however, He is plainly 
speaking in metaphor. The ‘ waterless places’ through which the demon 


walks are as metaphorical as the ‘empty, swept, and garnished house’ of 
the soul, 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 27 


than against religion as a whole. No one can deny that 
in our Lord’s case, the teaching which He gave about 
spirits is guarded from superstition by His teaching 
about God and human responsibility. Now, granted 
the existence of devils and angels’, there is no reason 
for doubting that they have from time to time made 
their presence perceptible to men—in the case of angels, 
as messengers of God and instruments of His redemptive 
purpose *—and to return to St. Luke’s narrative of the 
nativity, there is no reason for doubting that angelic 
ministrations were actually employed to announce the 
birth of the Forerunner and the incarnation and birth 
of the Christ. 

No other considerable objections than these two, 
which have now been examined and set aside, have 
been urged against the historical character of the first 
two chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel: we are justified 
therefore in falling back upon the positive considerations 
which indicate that the account in these chapters is 
derived from no other person than the Virgin Mother 
herself. 


1 The belief in the existence and appearance of ‘spirits’ is quite consistent 
with the recognition that we know hardly anything about them. The 
amount of pretended knowledge on the subject in Jewish and Christian 
writers is appalling. But in the Bible they are, we may say, never the sub- 
jects of divine revelation for their own sake. Their ‘persons’ are merged 
in their offices of adoration and service. Where angels appear in the Bible 
they appear in the form of men. 

2 The objection made against the early chapters of St. Luke on the score 
of the similarity of their contents to the birth-legends of heroes is met 
later on; § 6, p. 55. 


28 Dissertations. 


xn 
jes) 


The narrative of St. Matthew. 


Now we approach St. Matthews account of the 
nativity. The narrative of St. Luke, if it is authentic, 
must, as was said above, have come from Mary. The 
narrative of St. Matthew, on the other hand, bears upon 
it undesigned but evident traces of coming from the 
information of Joseph. It is Joseph’s perplexities that 
are in question’. Divine intimations are recorded as 
given to Joseph on three occasions, leading him to act 
for the protection of the Mother and Child from external 
perils. Now supposing the conception of Jesus really 
to have taken place without the intervention of Joseph, 
and supposing Joseph to have been, as the evangelist 
says, a ‘just man’ and to have died, as appears to have 
been the case, before the public ministry of our Lord 
began—it is only natural to suppose that he would 
have left behind him some document? clearing up, 
by his own testimony, the circumstances of the birth 
of Jesus. If the miraculous birth was ever to have 
been made public, his testimony would have been 
imperatively needed. This document he must, we 
should suppose, have given to Mary to vindicate by 
means of it, when occasion demanded, her own virginity. 
Why should she not, after the establishment of the 


a, 10; 2 A; 20, TiO. 22. 


% Joseph, like Zacharias (Luke i. 63), would have been able to write. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 29 


Church at Pentecost, have given it to the family of 
Joseph, the now believing ‘brethren of the Lord’? 
Why should it not have passed from their hands to 
the evangelist of the first Gospel, and have been worked 
over by him in view of his predominant interest—that of 
calling attention to fulfilments of prophecies? This theory 
of the origin of the first two chapters of St. Matthew’s 
Gospel at once accounts for the phenomena they present 
and vindicates, in substance, their historical character. 
That the narrative did pass through the hands of our 
Lord's family is more than likely, for Julius Africanus, 
a Christian writer of the beginning of the third century, 
who lived at Emmaus, informs us, and probably rightly, 
that it is to the relations of our Lord (ot derndéovvor 
kadovperot) that we owe the attempts to construct 
genealogies of Christ}. 

Is there then anything. internal to the narrative pro- 
hibiting such a view? It is a certain historical fact that 
Herod was, from circumstances and disposition, acutely 
jealous of any royal claim which might imperil his own 
position and that of his family*. It is certain that his 


1JIn Euseb. H. Z.i.7. Cf. Renan, Evang. pp. 60, 61, 186 ‘Le tour 
de la généalogie de Matthieu est hébraigue; les transcriptions des 
noms propres ne sont pas celles des Septante (Boés, et non Bod¢). Nous 
avons vu d’ailleurs que les généalogies furent probablement lceuvre des 
parents de Jésus, retirés en Batanée et parlant hébreu.’ 

? See Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 30. 4 énrénto TO pdBw Kal mpds macay irévoay 
efeppimréfero. Ant. xvii. 2. 7 [the Pharisees] mpovdAeyov ws ‘Hpwin peév 
karaTavaews apxns UT Oeov engiopévns avT@ TE Kal yéver TO aT avTov THs 
Te Baotrelas eis Te éxeivny [Pheroras’ wife] mepinfovons wal bepwpav, matdas 
TE Ol elev aUTOIS.. . Kal 6 BactAeds TOV Te Papicaiwy Tods aitiwraTous avapet 
kal Baywav Tov ebvovxov, K.T.A. KTEiver Be Kal TAY OTL TOU OiKElov GUVELOTHKEL 
ois 6 Papicatos éXeyev. This incident was shortly before Herod’s death. 
‘The momentary glimpses which we gain of him in the New Testament,’ 
says the late Dean Stanley, ‘ through the story of his conversation with the 


30 Dissertations. 


last days were, as Josephus records, marked by wild 
ferocity and brutality. Josephus’ story of his shutting 
up in the hippodrome the élite of the nation and taking 
measures to cause them to be murdered directly after 
his own death, in order that it might not be unaccom- 
panied with mourning!, may be a slander, but at least 
illustrates the impression he left of his character in his 
last days. Thus the history of the massacre of the few 
babes of Bethlehem and its district is wholly consistent 
with the man and the occasion. There is no one who 
could corroborate the evangelist except Josephus, and 
the silence of Josephus about all that concerns Chris- 
tianity is so nearly complete? that it can hardly be 
otherwise than intentional. Christianity was an object 
of hatred and suspicion to the masters of the world, 
when Josephus was writing®, and he may well have 
wished to say as little about it as possible in a work 
expressly intended to conciliate Gentile readers. 
Herod’s ‘massacre of innocents’ is thus an exceed- 
ingly credible and natural incident. As to the visit of 
the Magi—which (we may notice) is introduced into 
the narrative chiefly as accounting for the threatened 


Magi and his slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, are quite in keeping 
with the jealous, irritable, unscrupulous temper of the last ‘‘ days of Herod 
the king,” as we read them in the pages of Josephus’ (Zést. of Jewish 
Church, iii. p. 380). 

1 Joseph. Ant. xvii. 6.5. He describes the king as ‘ rabid with guilty 
and innocent alike’; or (c. 8. 1) ‘ fierce to all alike, the slave of passion.’ 

? Iam assuming that the famous passage (Azz. xviii. 4. 3) about Jesus 
Christ is at least greatly interpolated. 

% The Aztiguzties was finished about A. D. 94, in Domitian’s reign. On 
Domitian as a persecutor, see Ramsay, Zhe Church and the Roman Empire 
(Hodder & Stoughton, 1893) p. 259. Josephus would be anxious to disso- 
ciate his race from the Christians. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 31 


massacre, and consequent flight of Joseph and Mary 
into Egypt—it has its basis at least in what is natural 
and well known. The diffusion of Jews in the remoter 
East, the wide spread of the Jewish Messianic hope}, 
the attraction of all sorts of men towards Jewish 
synagogues—all this makes it not improbable to those 
who believe in a divine providence that some oriental 
astrologers should have had their thoughts directed 
towards Jerusalem, and should have paid a visit there, 
under the attraction of some celestial phenomenon, to 
seek a heaven-sent king. It is not improbable because 
God works upon men by His inspirations through their 
natural tendencies and occupations *—the supernatural, 
in this as in other cases, operating through the natural. 
It was said above that the narrative of Joseph had 
been worked over by the evangelist in his predominant 
interest in the fulfilment of prophecy. It is of course 
maintained that this is less than the truth, and that the 
prophecies have in fact created the supposed events: so 


1 Suetonius’ words are well known and often quoted (Vesfas. 4) ‘ Percre- 
bruerat ovzente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore 
Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de imperatore Romano, quantum 
postea eventu patuit, praedictum Iudaei ad se trahentes rebellarunt.’ But it is 
doubtful whether he has any source of information other than similar pas- 
sages in Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 4 and Tac. Ast. v. 13, which attribute such 
expectations only to the Jews. (Josephus, the Jew, originated the idea that 
the prophecy really referred to ‘the government of Vespasian.’) However, 
the universal diffusion of the Jews meant the universal diffusion of the 
Jewish expectations amongst themselves and their more or less attached 
proselytes. 

2 See St. Chrysostom’s excellent commentary on the event. God influ- 
ences men through their national customs and ideas. As the whole Jewish 
ritual system was only an instance of national Semitic rites taken as they 
were and made the vehicle of divine leading, so now God led the Magi 
through their astrology : ia Trav cuvnPwy adtods Karel opddpa ovyKataBaivar, 
k.T.A. (on St. Matt. vi. 3). 


32 Dissertations. 


that in particular the Virgin Birth at Bethlehem is 
a mere reflection of the prophecies of Micah and Isaiah, 
as represented in the Septuagint version, and that the 
visit of the Magi with the events following from it is 
a merely imaginative construction out of materials 
supplied by the anticipations and incidents of the Old 
Testament. 

It must be observed at starting that what we are 
asked to admit is more than the unconscious modifica- 
tion of some detail of history by adjustment to the 
language of prophecy. It is quite possible that the intro- 
duction of the ‘ass’ beside the ‘colt’ in Matt. xxi.-2, 
the specification of ‘thirty pieces of silver’ in Matt. 
XXVI. 15 (cf. xxvii. 3-10), the mingling of ‘gall’ with 
wine in Matt. xxvil. 34—details where St. Matthew is 
unsupported by the other evangelists, may be modifica- 
tions due to the influence of the language of Zechariah 
and the Psalmist respectively. But in all these cases 
the historical event stands substantially the same 
when the modification is removed. Christ rode into 
Jerusalem upon the foal, and was betrayed for a sum 
of money, and was given a drink of wine mingled 
with myrrh before His crucifixion. In the cases to be 
discussed in these two chapters the prophecies, if they 
had any effect on the supposed event, created them 
altogether. Jesus was in effect born naturally and at 
Nazareth: there was no visit of Magi or massacre of 
innocents or flight into Egypt. 

Now in general the argument from the influence 
of prophecy is weakened in proportion as the pro- 
phecies in question are such as would not to the pious 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. ee 


imagination of a Jew have required fulfilments such as 
are found for them: in other words, the argument is 
weakened in proportion as the application of the pro- 
phecy is not such as would have suggested itself prior to 
the event. Now there are five prophecies of which the 
fulfilment is discovered in these two chapters. Of these 
the last!, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene,’ finds its fulfil- 
ment in an undoubted event, but as a prophecy cannot 
be identified with any passage in the Old Testament. 
Phe fourth” 1s, a: passage from. Jer. xxxi.05 which 
describes Rachel, as the mother of Israel, weeping for 
her children, carried away into captivity to Babylon. It 
is an historical passage; and while the association of 
Rachel with Bethlehem, her burial-place *, naturally sug- 
gested its application to the ‘massacre of the innocents ’ 
—Rachel again weeping over her children—it could 
hardly by any possibility have saggested this latter event. 
The third* is again an historical passage from Hosea 
xi. 1: ‘When Israel was a child then I loved him, and 
called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they 
went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim,’ &c. The 
identification of the Christ with the true Israel no doubt 
would suggest the appropriateness of Christ, like Israel, 
being delivered from Egypt, when once the event had 
occurred or when a narrative of it was before the evan- 
gelist. But the historical passage cannot in this case 
either be conceived to have produced the event. Critics 
are at liberty to say that the evangelist’s method of 
interpreting prophecy is unconvincing. They cannot 
say he forced the event to the prophecy. 
gt Rare ei. 07; 18. 3 Gen. Xxxv. 15. ae ee 


D 


34 Dissertations. 


On the other hand, there was a prophecy, or set 
of prophecies, which might have suggested the episode 
of the Magi, but if it had suggested it, would have 
suggested it in a different shape. There was a pro- 
phecy! that ‘Gentiles should come to Israel’s light, and 
kings to the brightness of his rising,’ and another? that 
‘the kings of Tarshish and of the isles should bring pre- 
sents: the kzmgs of Sheba and Seba should offer gifts.’ 
These prophecies, working in the imagination of later 
Christendom, did in fact transmute the visit of the Magi 
into the visit of the three kings. But they could not 
have produced the event as St. Matthew records it, and 
St. Matthew neither modifies the event to suit them 
nor refers to the prophecies at all *. 

Such considerations as these must be with us in 
approaching the first two of the five ‘fulfilments’ pointed 
out by St. Matthew in these chapters. The second 
tefers us back to a teal prophecy*of Bethlehenras 
destined to the glory of producing the heaven-sent 
ruler of Israel*: ‘ But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which 
art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of 
thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in 
Israel” It does not appear to have originally meant 
more than that the Messianic king should come of 
David's line, and so indirectly of David’s city. But it 

i Ce ee a°Ps, lexis 40: 

* It should be noticed, as bearing on the date of St. Matthew’s narrative, 
that the story of the star, as it appears in Ignatius (c. A. D. 110), EPA. 19, 
already shows the influence of mythical exaggeration. It shone astonishingly 
above all the stars, and the sun and moon and heavenly bodies were atten- 
dant upon it. Here the accretion manifestly reflects the story of Joseph’s 


dream in Gen. xxxvii., 
* Micah v. 2. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 35 


did suggest to the Jews, and apparently before our 
Lord’s time}, that the Christ was to be himself born at 
Bethlehem. Did then the prophecy, thus interpreted, 
produce the event, and was Jesus really born, as Strauss, 
Renan, Keim, and others affirm, at Nazareth? The 
suggestion can only be entertained by those who on 
other grounds have arrived at a low estimate of the 
historical trustworthiness of the evangelist altogether. 
The entirely independent narratives of the first and third 
Gospels agree in placing the birth at Bethlehem, and in 
St. Luke’s gospel this is not connected at all with pro- 
phecy. The same argument applies to the first prophecy” 
referred to by St. Matthew (ls. vii. 14). As rendered 
impthe Inc “version the jprophecy ran; “Behold; the 
virgin shall conceive, &c. It does not appear that the 
Hebrew word need necessarily mean more than ‘ young 
woman ®’: nor does it appear that there was any Jewish 
expectation that the Christ should be born of a virgin‘. 
Did, then, the text as rendered in the Greek suggest the 
idea? It is impossible to think this if these early narra- 
tives are anything better than imaginary productions at 
all. Foragain St. Luke’s and St. Matthew’s independent 
accounts are at one on this point; and if any informa- 
tion from Joseph and Mary underlies them, this is the 
point on which their information must have centred ; 
and if St. Matthew's interest is absorbed in prophecy, 


1 See Edersheim, 7. c. i. 206 ; Geikie, L7fe and Words of Christ (Strahan, 
1878), i. 148. Cf. St. John vii. 42. 

* Stu Matts 12:23: 

3 See, among recent Roman Catholic scholars, the Abbé Loisy, 
L’Enseignement Biblique (Paris, 44 Rue d’Assas, 1893), n°. 11, p. 54. 

* See appended note A. 


D2 


36 Dissertations. 


St. Luke makes no mention of it. Moreover, it may be 
said generally that the study of the orzgznes of the 
Church will convince any candid student that the truth 
is rather that the actual events taught the first Christians 
to read prophecy afresh, than that prophecy induced 
them to imagine events—at any rate, important events— 
which did not occur !. 

On the whole, then, (1) the character of St. Matthew’s 
applications of prophecy in these chapters, (2) the fact 
that he does not modify the account of the Magi to suit 
obviously applicable prophecies, (3) the agreement with 
St. Matthew of St. Luke, who is without any special 
interest in prophecy, prevent us from imagining that 
the Virgin Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem was a romantic 
and unhistorical idea suggested by the forecasts of the 
Old Testament. An exact examination of the pro- 
phecies and their fulfilment may tend to weaken a 
certain form of the argument from prophecy, but not 
the historical truth of the evangelic narrative. 


§ 4. 
The relation of the two narratives. 


What then is the relation of the two narratives? 
They are indeed obviously independent, but are they 
incompatible? The present writer is disposed to reply 
that they are indeed incompatible in certain details as 
they stand, but that the incompatible elements are 


* Cf. Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, p. 193. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 37 


explicable quite easily by the use which the evangelists 
made of the earlier documents upon which they relied. 

Thus St. Matthew is apparently ignorant that Joseph 
and Mary had been at Nazareth before the occasion of 
their going there from Egypt!. This is simply explained 
by the previous residence there not having been alluded 
to in the document which he used, as it was in that used 
by St. Luke. On the other hand, St. Luke is probably 
ignorant of the flight into Egypt and supposes that Mary 
and Joseph returned to Nazareth from Jerusalem imme- 
diately after the Presentation*. The flight into Egypt 
was not in his document, and he let the narrative run on 
as a compiler would who was ignorant of its having 
occurred *. Granted these two points, the narratives 
are quite compatible with one another—St. Luke i; 
ot, Matt. 1)28=259 5) St: Luke ii. 1-21 [St: Matt. ir 95°) 
Srleake si) 22-98) (St. Matt: 41) (St. Luke ii.- 39) 
St. Luke ii. 40-52, forming a more or less continuous 
series of pictures. 

But hitherto we have left out of consideration the 
genealogies. That two apparently incompatible genea- 
logies should have been left to stand in the Gospels and 
create difficulties from the second century downwards, is 
indeed valuable evidence of the independence of our first 
and third Gospels, and that they were not modified to 
suit one another after composition. But what is to be said 
as to their origin? We should judge that St. Matthew’s 
genealogy was attached to the account of the birth 


He. Math ii: 23- ? St. Luke ii. 39. 

3 St. Luke’s account of the interval from the resurrection to the ascen- 
sion in c. xxiv, as compared with Acts i, is suggestive of indifference to verbal 
accuracy in note of time and place. 


38 Dissertations. 


which supplied him with his material. As already 
mentioned, we believe it to have been, probably, the 
work of our Lord’s relatives. However unknown to us 
are the fortunes of David’s family after the return from 
the captivity, it appears that the great Hillel, grand- 
father of Gamaliel, who belonged to a family of Jewish 
exiles in Babylon and came to Jerusalem about B.C. 50, 
was recognized as of David’s family, and that appeal was 
made in vindication of his claim to ‘a pedigree found in 
Jerusalem !’: it is certain also that the claim of Jesus to 
be of the royal house was acknowledged at the time 
and by the later Jews”. Under these circumstances it 
appears probable that the relatives of Jesus constructed 
for him in the early days of the Church a genealogy from 
the best sources, written or traditional, which were open to 
them®. Jewish ideas of genealogy were largely putative : 
it was thought that a man by marrying his deceased 
brother’s wife could raise up seed unto his brother *. 
It is therefore more than likely that it would have 


1! See Delitzsch, Jesus and Hillel (Bagster’s trans., 1877) p. 139. The 
statement is based on Bereschith Rabba, § 98. Cf. Renan’s Zvang. p. 60, who 
refers to Talm. de Jér. A7z/azm ix. 3 (Derenbourg, p. 349), from which he 
infers ‘La préoccupation de la race de David est assez vive vers l’an 100.’ 
Josephus gives us valuable information as to the keeping of the genealogies 
of the priests in Jerusalem and in their own families (V2¢. 1, com. Apion. i. 7). 

? See (1) Rom. i. 3, St. Mark xi. 10, Rev. xxii. 16, Hebr. vii. 14 mpddnAov 
6m. (2) Euseb. H. £. iii. 20 for Hegesippus’ narrative of our Lord’s 
kinsmen being summoned to satisfy Domitian that though of the house of 
David they made no dangerous pretensions: cf. Renan, Zvang. p. 61. 
(3) The proof which Renan gives (4.¢.) that from the beginning of the 
third century the Jews recognized the royal origin of Jesus (Talm. de Bab. 
Sanhédrin 43a: cf. Derenbourg, p. 349, note 2). 

’ Cf. Africanus in Euseb. H. Z. i. 7. 14 eis 6c0v éfixvovvro, But I do 
not pause to discuss the details of the narrative of Africanus. 

* St. Matt. xxii. 24. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 39 


been held that the espousal of Joseph and Mary con- 
stituted Jesus Joseph's son for all the purposes of 
Jewish reckoning !. Luke’s genealogy, on the other 
hand, if we judge from the place where it occurs, appears 
not to have been attached to the document of the birth”. 
We can make no guess as to its origin. We do not 
venture to commit ourselves to any existing attempt to 
conciliate it with St. Matthew’s. We only emphasize 
the fact that the Davidic origin of Jesus was acknow- 
ledged, that His family and disciples made honest and 
independent attempts to draw up the record of His 
genealogy, and that putative ideas of descent are pro- 
bably at least in part responsible for the divergence in 
their results. If indeed it were the fact, as Godet and 
other modern writers affirm, that in the Talmud Mary 
is spoken of as the daughter of Heli, it would be natural 
to identify this Heli with the person who is mentioned 
as the father of Joseph in St. Luke’s genealogy ; and to 
suppose that this genealogy was intended by its un- 
known compiler as the genealogy of Mary, though it 
was apparently misunderstood by St. Luke to be the 
genealogy of Joseph. But in fact the statement, which is 
originally derived from Lightfoot, is based on a quite 
untenable translation ”. 


1 It is not, I think, possible to argue from the fact that genealogies are 
traced through Joseph against the original belief in the virgin birth, when 
these genealogies are in immediate connexion with the account of the virgin 
birth. If the Evangelists who put them there did not think they were incom- 
patible with the virgin birth, it cannot be argued that their original compilers 
did. Cf. Loisy, 7.c. p. 50 ‘(Les évangélistes] ont évidemment pensé que 
Joseph avait transmis a Jésus le droit davidique, par cela seul qu’il avait 
tenu a l’égard de Jésus le rdle de pére. Ils ont cru qu'une filiation légale et 
interprétative suffisait pour l’'accomplissement des prophéties.’ 

2 See Horae Hebraicae (Oxford, 1859) ili. p. 55. The phrase in (zeros. 


40 Dissertations. 


To go on answering objections made to the historical 
trustworthiness of documents is apt to give an appear- 
ance of weakness. People complain, ‘There is so much 
that needs answering. Can a document which gives rise 
to so many objections be really true?’ We return there- 
fore in conclusion to our positive position. The belief 
in the general trustworthiness of the evangelical records, 
and in particular the belief in the trustworthy use which 
St. Luke makes of the documents at his disposal, is 
well established by the facts. The particular documents 
of the infancy bear upon them unmistakeable traces— 
while at the same time undesigned traces—of coming 
ultimately from Joseph and Mary: the objections made 
against their historical truth do not really stand, or at 
least do not stand to any extent which affects the sub- 
stantial truth of the narrative: in particular the idea that 
prophecies of the Old Testament created the story that 
Jesus was born at Bethlehem and born of a virgin will 
not hold in the light of the use which St. Matthew on the 
whole makes of prophecy in his first two chapters, nor 
in the light of the independent testimony which St. Luke 
affords to these events without exhibiting any interest 
in prophecy. We conclude then that in all essential 
features we are justified in taking these narratives for 
real history. 

Chagig. fol. 77, col. 4, is as follows, pYo¥2 *Sy NII OY NM. Light- 
foot renders He saw Miriam the daughter of Heli among the shades 
(D’P¥2 DY) But I am assured that the only legitimate translation is He 
saw Miriam the daughter of ‘ Onion-Leaves’ (DYDya y—a nickname of 


a kind not uncommon in the Talmud), and there is no reason to suppose any 
reference to our Lord’s mother. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 41 


§ 5. 
The tradition of the churches. 


Wherever the first and third Gospels were accepted 
and read in the Christian assemblies, there the Virgin 
Birth of Jesus would become an accepted fact, ike any 
other incident in the Gospel history. Now the traces 
of the use of these Gospels go back to the beginning 
of the second century. We should expect, therefore, 
that, so far as the literature affords indications, we should 
find the churches of the second century believing in the 
Virgin Birth. But something more than this is the case. 
The earliest churches, in their conflict with the different 
heresies to which the restless spirit of those days gave 
rise, make much appeal to ¢radztion. The Church has 
not only documents but oral tradition. This tradition 
was stereotyped in the varying, but substantially similar, 
baptismal creeds of east and west. But before it was 
so stereotyped it was assuming gradually a fixed form. 
It was the summary of that ‘ truth’ of which the Church 
was to be the ‘ pillar and ground!” One main function 
assigned to the apostolic succession of the ministry was 
that of giving perpetuity to this tradition and preserving 
it from corruption’. It was imparted as rudimentary 
instruction to every catechumen. Such a ‘tradition ’ is 
presupposed as imparted and assimilated in every part 

1 1 Tim, iii, 15. 

2 See Irenaeus, cow. Haer. iii. 3-4, iv. 26.2; Tertullian, de Praescr. 32, 36; 
Hegesippus, ap. Eus. 7. £. iv. 22. 


42 Dissertations. 


of the New Testament!. In different books different 
elements of it are noticed or implied, such as (1) the 
threefold Name, (2) the chief historical incidents of our 
Lord’s life, (3) instruction in moral duties and in the ‘ last 
things,’ (4) teaching about the sacraments’. Now it is 
not perhaps too much to argue from St. Luke’s preface 
to his Gospel that the Virgin Birth of Jesus was already 
part of that oral instruction which had been imparted 
to Theophilus and to complete which he only needed 
more secure information *®. In any case, what I am now 
concerned to show is that in the creed-like formulas of 
the churches the statement of the Virgin Birth had its 
place from so early a date and along so many different 
lines of ascent as to force upon us the conclusion that 
already before the death of the last apostles the Virgin 
Birth of Christ must have been among the rudiments 
of the faith in which every Christian was initiated *. 


1 See St. Luke i. 4 wept dv xatnxnOns Adywv: Acts ii. 42 TH Sidayxy Tov 
amootéAwy : Rom. vi. 17 eis dv mapeddOnTe TUTov Sidayjns: 1 Cor. xi. 23, 
xv. 1-3: Gal. i. 8, 9: 2 Thess. iii. 6 4 mapadoois: Hebr. v. 12 Ta oTorxeta : 
2 Tim. i. 13 itot’twow iyavdvtTwy Adywv: Jude 3 TH Anak mapadobeion Tots 
ayiows miorer: 2 Pet. i. 12: 1 Johniil. 20. 

2 See (1) St. Matt. xxviii. 19; cf. Didache, 7 (baptism into ‘the Name’ 
implies teaching about it, which is also implied in all that familiarity 
with the idea of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which the 
New Testament takes for granted) ; (2) Luke i. 1-4, 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3-4; 
(3) Hebr. vi. 1-2, 1 Thess. iv. 1-2, v. 2; (4) Hebr. vi. 1-6, Rom. vi. 3, 1 Cor. 
K 15-16, x1. 23 ft set, Acts. ai. 38. 

* St. Luke i. 4 ‘that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the 
things in which thou wast orally instructed.’ 

* It is important to distinguish variations in the words of creeds from 
variations in the substance of tradition. Thus, for example, the creed of 
the church of Caesarea, as it was presented in the Council of Nicaea (see 
Socrates, 7. Z. 1. 8, and Heurtley, de Fide et Symbolo, p. 4), and the actual 
creed of Nicaea itself, state the fact of the Incarnation, but make no specific 
mention of the wirgzn birth, through which the Incarnation took place: 
moTevopey eis Eva Kipiov “Incovy Xpiorév, Tov Tidy Tov Oeov, ... Tov &’ Huas 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 43 


Thus (1) Irenaeus, writing, as he tells us, while 
Eleutherus was bishop of Rome, i.e. not later than 
A.D. 190, assures us of the place the Virgin Birth held 
in the traditions of the whole Church. 


“the Church, he says, ‘though scattered over the 
whole world to the ends of the earth, yet having received 
from the apostles and their disciples the faith 

in one God the Father Almighty... 

and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was 

incarnate for our salvation: 

and in the Holy Ghost, who by the prophets announced 

His dispensations and His comings: 

and the birth of the Virgin, and the passion, and resur- 

rection from the dead, and the bodily assumption 

into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, 

and His appearance from heaven in the glory of 

theP ater...” 
having received, as we said, this preaching and this 
faith, the Church, though scattered over the whole world, 
guards it diligently, as inhabiting one house, and believes 
in accordance with these words as having one soul and 
the same heart ; and with one voice preaches and teaches 
and hands on these things, as if possessing one mouth. 
For the languages of the world are unlike, but the force 
of the tradition is [everywhere] one and the same *.’ 
Tous avOpwrouvs Kal dia THY HpeTepav owrnpiav KaTeEdAOdvTA Kal capKwherTa, 
evavOpwrncavta, madvta, x.T.A4. This however does not mean any lack of 
importance attached to the virgin birth. Eusebius, the bishop of the 
church of Caesarea, shows us in his writings that the virgin birth was 
supposed to be zzvolved in any statement of the Incarnation. Thus in 
contra Marcellum de Eccl. Theol., after much discussion of the Incarnation 
in ii. 1 (Gaisford, p. 199), the virgin birth is incidentally mentioned—ii. 4 
(p. 205) 6 é&v TH ayia mapbévw yevopevos, Kat capkwOeis Kal évavOpwrnoas 
kal nadwy. 

1 con. Haer. i. 10.1 % pev yap éxkAnola, Kaimep Kad’ OAns Ths oixovpéevns 
tws mepatav Ths yhs Sueonappévn, Tapa 5¢ Tov dmooTéAwy Kal TaY ExEivaY 


44 Dissertations. 


So he proceeds to specify as agreeing in this faith the 
churches of Germany, Spain, Gaul,the East, Egypt, Libya, 
and Italy’. In the creed of Tertullian, who represents 
Rome and Carthage, a little later than Irenaeus,the Virgin 
Birth holds the same secure and prominent place. ‘The 
rule of faith, he says, ‘is altogether one, single, unalter- 
able; the rule that is of believing in one God Almighty, 
the maker of the world ; and His Son Jesus Christ, born 
of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, &c.?’ 

The summary of faith which Irenaeus gave belongs, he 
says, to all the churches, and is preserved by the epis- 
copal successions everywhere. But he lays special stress 
upon the representative witness of two churches: upon 
that of the Church of Rome, in which he enumerates 
the succession of bishops from the time of the founda- 
tion of the episcopate by Peter and Paul; and upon 
that of the Church of Polycarp, Smyrna, with the other 
churches of Asia. For before Irenaeus came to Rome he 
had been brought up in Asia as the pupil of Polycarp, 


HaOnTav mapadaBovoa Tijv eis Eva Oedv TaTépa TavToKparopa ... TiaTiW* Kal 
eis Eva Xpiotiv “Inaovy, Tov vidv Tov Ocod, Tiv capKwhévTa UTep THs HMETEpas 
owrnpias’ Kal eis mvevpa Gyov, TO id THY TpopynT@v KexnpuxXos Tas olkovopias, 
kai Tas éAevoets, Kal THY Ex TapOévov yévynow, Kal TO TA00s, Kal THY eyepoww 
ex verpav, Kal THY €voapkov Eis TOvs Ovpavods dv aAnLY TOU HYyaTN LEvou Xprorov 
‘Ingov Tov Kupiov nya, Kal TH éx TY ovparav év TH Sdn Tod TaTpos Tapouciav 
avTOoU .. . TOUTO TO KHpYypya TapeLAnpuia kal TAaVTHY THY TidTLY, Ws Tpoeépaper, 
H €xkAnoia, kainep év bw TO Kocpw SeoTappevn, emperAas puddooet, ws Eva 
oikov oikovaa’ Kal dpoiws moTEver TOUTOLS, Ws piav ux} Kal THY avTIY exovTAa 
kapdiav, Kal cuupwvws Tavra Knpvooe Kal KiddoKer Kal napadidwory, ws ev oTOMa 
KexTnpevn. Kal yap al Kata Tov KéGpov SidAEKToL Gvopotot, GAAA % Sdvapus 
THs Tapaddcews pia Kal  avTn. 

1 con. Haer. i, 10. 2. Cf. iii. 4. 2, where this is repeated in substance, and 
the virgin birth still appears among the rudiments. In iv. 33. 7, a shorter 
form is given, where only the Incarnation is actually specified. 

2 See de Virg. Veland. i (written about A. D. 210). 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 45 


who had himself belonged to the circle of the last of 
the apostles. So that his testimony has value both for 
the range which it covers and for the source out of which 
it springs. We have evidence however of the truth of 
what he says from earlier witnesses. 

(2) Justin Martyr passed before Bar-cochba’s revolt 
(A. D. 132-6) from his Samaritan home in Palestine to 
Ephesus, and from Ephesus to Rome. His summaries 
of Christian belief, which he gives in his Apologies (c. 150) 
and Dialogue, have sometimes a creed-like ring: and in 
these creed-like summaries the Virgin Birth holds the 
same conspicuous place as in those of Irenaeus. ‘ For in 
the name of this very person,’ he says to Trypho the Jew, 
‘the Son of God, and first begotten of all creation, and 
born of a virgin and made passible man, and crucified 
under Pontius Pilate by your people,and dead, and risen 
from the dead, and ascended into heaven, every demon 
when exorcised is conquered and subdued !?.’ 


1 Dial. 85 kata yap Tov dvdpuaros adtod TovTov Tov viovd Tov OEeov Kal 
mpwrotdékou maons KTicEews, Kal Sia rapOEvou yevynOévros Kal TAOnTOdD yevomevou 
avOpwrov, Kal oravpwhévTos émt Tovriov TkAdrov b16 Tov Aaov bpav Kal aro- 
OavovrTos, Kat avacrayvtos ék vexpav kal dvaBavros «is Tov ovpavdv, may 
darporviov eLopKi(dpevov mKata kal bwordacera. Here we have, no doubt, 
a reflection of the formula of exorcism; cf. Origen c. Cels. i. 6 ob yap Kata- 
KAnoecw icxveyv Soxovo.wv GAAA TH dvopaTt "Incov weTA THs amayyeAlas 
Tay wept avrov iatopi@y. But the formula of exorcism is not likely to 
differ in the facts recited from the creed of baptism. Other summaries in 
Justin are Afpol. 46 dia mapOévov dvOpwros arexunOn Kal “Inoovs émavopacen 
kal oravpwOels dnobavav dvéorn Kal avednAvOev eis obpaviv. Afol. 31 yevvw- 
pevov Sia tapOevov kal avSpovpevoy Kal Oepamevovta tacav vocov ... Kal 
pOovovpevov Kal ayvoovpevoy Kal oTavpovpevov ... Kal dmoOvicKovTa Kai 
dvayeipdpevov Kal eis ovpavods dvepxdpevoy (this is a summary of the pro- 
phecies about Christ). In all the above quotations virgin birth, incarnation, 
crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension, are the chief points of belief 
about Christ. 


46 Dissertations. 


(3) Still earlier, Ignatius, who must have become 
bishop in Antioch by the very beginning of the second 
century, as he passes through the churches of Asia on his 
way to his martyrdom, about A.D. 110, gives the same 
witness as Justin. ‘The virginity of Mary and her child- 
bearing and in like manner the death of the Lord,’ that is, 
the atoning value of the death, are ‘three mysteries of loud 
proclamation which were wrought in the silence of God.’ 
That is to say, hidden as were the original transactions, 
they have become part of the loudly proclaimed message 
of the Church +, 

(4) The Christian philosopher Aristides of Athens is 
not so widely representative a man as those hitherto 
mentioned, but he and Quadratus are the earliest Christian 
apologists. And in his recently recovered Afpology? the 
Virgin Birth is mentioned, and in such a manner as to 

1 Ign. Eph. 19 7 TapOevia Mapias ral 6 ToKeTOs adTijs, 6poiws Kal 6 PavaTos 
TOU Kupiov’ Tpia pvoTnpia Kpavyfs ariva ev Hovxia Oe ov émpaxOn : cf. cc. 7, 18. 
Smyrn. i yeyevvnévoy adnO@s éx wapOévov, BeBanticpévov b1d “Iwavvov... 
GAnOa@s émt Tovriov TWiAdrov «ai ‘Hpwiou retpapxou KabnrAwpévoy trép huav 
év capri... iva... bia THs avacrdoews, x.7.4. Trall.g “Inoov Xpiotovd ... 
Tov €k yévous Aaveid, Tov éx Mapias, Os dAnOa@s eyevyndn, Epayev TE Kal 
Encev, GAnOWs Ed.wyXAn Ent Tlovriov MAdTov, dAnOas EcTtavpwOn Kal awéOavev ... 
GdnOas iyepOn. The birth of Mary and the passion and the resurrection 
are already in Ignatius the chief #zoments of the incarnate life. 

? The date is c. 126, or perhaps 140. See Zexts and Studies (Cambridge, 
1891) vol. i. no. I, pp. 6 ff. The editor of the 4fology, Mr. Rendel 
Harris, says (p. 25) ‘ Everything that we know of the dogmatics of the early 
part of the second century agrees with the belief that at that period the 


virginity of Mary was a part of the formulated Christian belief.... We 
restore the fragments of Aristides’ creed, then, as follows :— 


We believe in one God, Almighty, | He was pierced by the Jews: 


Maker of heaven and earth : He died and was buried : 
And in Jesus Christ His Son, The third day He rose again : 
- He ascended into heaven, 


Born of the Virgin Mary : : : : : ; : 
: ; , ; 2 He is about to come to judge.’ 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 47 


suggest that it had a place in the creed of the Church of 
his day. ‘ The Christians,’ he says, ‘reckon the beginning 
of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the 
Son of God Most High: and it is said that God came 
down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and 
clad Himself with flesh ... He was pierced by the Jews; 
and He died and was buried; and they say that after 
three days He rose and ascended to heaven.’ 

(5) The Church of Alexandria has distinctive charac- 
teristics anda more or less separate history. It is there- 
fore important to notice that in respect of the emphatic 
belief in the Virgin Birth it did not differ from other 
churches. When Origen (c. A.D. 230) states in summary 
‘the teaching of the Church which has been handed 
down from the apostles in the order of succession and 
eomcinues im “the churches to the ‘present time, he 
specifies that Jesus Christ ‘was born of a virgin and of 
the Holy Spirit, that He was truly born, did truly 
suffer and truly die, did truly rise from the dead and 
after His resurrection was taken up’: and when arguing 
with Celsus the Platonist, he exclaims ‘Who has not 
heard of Jesus’ virgin birth, of the crucified, of His 
resurrection, of which so many are convinced, and the 
announcement of judgement tocome?!’ So the earlier 
Clement (c. 190-200) describes ‘the whole dispensation ’ 
thus: ‘When one says that the Son of God who made 
the universe took flesh and was conceived in the womb 
of a virgin ... and suffered and rose again®,’ 

(6) Besides the testimonies to the place the Virgin 


1 de Princip. pref. quoted below, p. 108, and cow. Cels. i. 7. 
= Clem. Srrom. Vi. 15: 127; 


48 Dissertations. 


Birth held in the creeds which were taking shape in 
the second century, we may mention that it is referred 
to in the Zestament of the Twelve Patriarchs!: and that 
if, as Origen tells us, the Gospel of Peter affirmed that 
‘the brethren of the Lord’ were the sons of Joseph by 
a former wife, that docetic production of the early part 
of the second century recognized not only the virginity, 
but the perpetual virginity, of Mary *. 

We have evidence then that the Virgin Birth held 
a prominent place in the second-century tradition or 
creed of the churches of Rome’, Greece*, Africa®, Asia®, 
Syria and Palestine’, Alexandria*®. Such a consensus 
in the second century, reaching back to its beginning, 


+ Test. Joseph. 19 &k Tov “Iovda éyevvnOn wapbévos ... Kal ef adths mpo- 
HrAGev duvos Guwpos. These Zestaments have been commonly quoted as the 
work of a ‘ Nazarene’ Jewish Christian written in the earlier part of the 
second century, probably before Bar-cochba’s revolt (A.D. 132). But Mr. 
Conybeare has discovered an Armenian ms. in which some of the manifestly 
Christian allusions disappear. See Jew7sh Quarterly Review, April 1893, 
p- 375. The particular passage cited above appears ina longer but less plainly 
Christian form, p. 390. This and other evidence makes for the theory that it 
was originally a purely Jewish work gradually interpolated with Christian 
passages: see Dr. Kohler, /.c. p. 401. (If we cannot however quote this 
work as evidence for Jewish Christian belief, we can get behind it: for the 
documents of the birth in Matthew and Luke unmistakeably came from 
Jewish circles.) 

? Origen, zz Matt. x. 17 Tods 5& abdeApods "Inoov dact tives eiva, ex 
Tapaddcews Spywpmevor TOU émyeypaypévov Kata Tlétpov evayyeAiou 7) THs 
BiBrov "IaxwBov, viots Iwanp é« mporépas yuvaikds ouvwKykvias aiT@ mpd THs 
Mapias. As is well known, a fragment from the end of the Gospel has 
recently been discovered. For the above argument cf. Ch. Quart. Rev. 
Jan. 1893, p. 480. Dr. Taylor finds reference to the virgin birth in the 
Shepherd of Hermas: see Hermas and the Four Gospels (Cambridge, 1892), 
Pp. 29-32. 

* Irenaeus. * Aristides. > Tertullian. 

° Irenaeus, Justin, and Ignatius. 

7 Ignatius, Justin, documents for first and third Gospels. 


® Clement and Origen. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 49 


among very independent churches, seems to us, apart from 
any question of the Gospels, to prove for the belief an 
apostolic origin. It could not have taken such an undis- 
puted and universal position unless it had really had the 
countenance of the apostolic founders of churches—of 
Peter and Paul and John, of James and the Lord’s 
‘brethren.’ The argument of Tertullian and Irenaeus 
from the identity of distinct traditions to their apostolic 
origin has within certain limits conclusive force. 

For there is a consensus of traditions. Opponents of 
the Virgin Birth appear, but it must be admitted that 
they are innovating upon earlier tradition or retrograding 
from it; andthat they are opponents also of the principle 
of the Incarnation. There are no believers in the Incarna- 
tion discoverable, who are not also believers in the Virgin 
Birth: while on the other hand, it must be said that the 
teaching of the Virgin Birth proceeded out of that 
thoroughly Jewish section of the early Christian Church 
in which the belief in the Incarnation was not clearly 
developed out of the belief in Jesus as the Messiah. 

(1) The first Christian who is known to have denied 
the Virgin Birth is Cerinthus, whom a credible tradition 
makes a contemporary of St. John. Among much that 
is legendary in his story, certain facts emerge as very 
probably true’. He was a Jew, ‘trained in the teaching 
of the Egyptians,’ i.e. presumably in Alexandria. His 
teaching in some respects was characteristically Jewish, 
in particular in its chiliastic eschatology and, appa- 
rently, in its insistence upon the permanent obligation 
of the Jewish ceremonial law, at least in parts. But his 

1 See Dict. of Chr. Biog., art. CERINTHUS. 
E 


50 Dissertations. 


Judaism was tinged with that oriental horror of the 
material world which he would have learnt from the 
great Alexandrian Jew Philo, and which was one main 
characteristic of the various gnostic sects. The ‘gnostic’ 
tendency led him to attribute the creation of the world 
to a lower power than the Supreme God, and to draw 
a distinction between Jesus the material man and the 
‘spiritual’ Christ. He declared that Jesus was not 
born of a virgin but was the son of Joseph and Mary, 
after the ordinary manner; only as he was pre-eminent 
beyond all other men in moral excellence, so after his 
baptism the Christ in the form of a dove descended 
upon him from the supreme region to enable him to 
reveal the unknown Father and to work miracles: but 
finally left him again before the passion, so that the 
man Jesus suffered and rose again, but the Christ 
remained spiritual and impassible’. This is a doctrine 
which has remarkable affinity with the sort of gnostic 
docetism which appears also in the Gospel of Peter, 
though that document is intensely anti-Jewish, and 
appears to have accepted the Virgin Birth*, We need 
not dwell long upon it. Whatever its importance for 
the history of the Church, it is wholly alien from 


1 Tren. con. Haer. i. 26. 1 ‘TJesum autem subiecit non ex virgine natum 
(impossibile enim hoc ei visum est) ; fuisse autem eum Joseph et Mariae 
filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et plus potuisse iustitia et prudentia 
et sapientia prae omnibus. Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea 
principalitate, quae est super omnia, Christum figura columbae; et tunc 
annuntiasse incognitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem revolasse 
iterum Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse ; Christum 
autem impassibilem perseverasse, exsistentem spiritualem.’ 

* See toward the beginning of the recovered fragment, Zhe Gospel accord- 
ing to Peter, a lecture by J. A. Robinson (Camb. 1892) pp. 2o0f. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 5t 


eae (Chtistianity of james or Peter, Paul or John, 
Matthew or Luke. To them there is no antagonism, 
as there is none in the canonical Old Testament, between 
God and the material world, and no objection, therefore, 
arising from such an idea to belief in the incarnation 
and the passion of the Son of God. The separation 
between the higher impassible person Christ and the 
lower Jesus is alien to them. Of Cerinthus then it is 
emphatically true that he does not represent earlier 
tradition, and that his rejection of the Virgin Birth arises 
from a rejection of the principle of the Incarnation. 

(2) Justin Martyr, in argument with the Jew Trypho, 
tells him of the existence of a considerable body of 
Christians (men ‘belonging to our race’) who denied 
the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth, but still believed 
Christ to be the Messiah. They are not the majority, 
for the majority prefer to be guided by the teaching of 
the prophets and of Christ. But they exist, and Justin is 
ready to urge Trypho and other Jews, if they cannot 
accept the idea of the Incarnation and Virgin Birth, at 
least to come as far as these persons and to believe that 
Jesus is the Messiah}. 

The Christians here alluded ‘to are no doubt the 


1 Justin. Dzal. c. Tryph. 48 ode dmdddAvta 70 Todrov eivar Xprorov Tov 
Oeov, édy amoder~ar pr) SVvwpar OTL Kal mpotinHpxev vids Tod ToLNnTOd TOY SAwY, 
Oeds wy, Kal yeyevynta avOpwros bia THs TapOévov.... Kal yap eici TiVeEs, @ 
piror, EXeyov, a1O TOU HpETEpou yévous dmodoyovrTes av’TOv Xproroy civat, 
” x 3 > , i > / e > s >>? 
avOpwrov d€ e€ avOpwrwv yevopevov atopaivopevot’ ois ov ovvTiPepa, ovd 
sy - ae 2 , ” > \ > > , , 
av mAeioToL TavTa po SofagayTes eEimorev’ €mrELd7) OV avOpwreiols Sidaypyact 
KekeAevopeda im’ adTov Tov XpiaTod TeiOecOat, GAAG Tos id TOY paKapiwv 
mpopntav KnpuxOetor kal 6: avrov &daxGeior. Inc. 49 he gives us to under- 
stand that these (Ebionite) Christians believed Jesus to have been ‘anointed 
(at His baptism) in accordance with divine selection, and thus to have 
become Christ.’ 


E 2 


52 Dissertations. 


‘Ebionites, as they are called by Irenaeus and later 
writers. Two things are worth notice in this passage of 
Justin. First, that his willingness to call the Ebionites 
Christians indicates that the line of demarcation between 
orthodoxy and heresy was not at that time, at least in 
his Palestinian home, as sharply drawn as it was in 
the’ Church ‘at darge before the end ofthe second 
century’. Palestinian Ebionism in fact probably repre- 
sents a gradual ‘reversion to type’ or deterioration 
from the original apostolic standpoint towards pre- 
Christian Judaism. There was no originator of the 
heresy such as the ‘ Ebion’ whom the Fathers imagined. 
Secondly, we should notice the rejection of the Virgin 
Birth coincided in this case, as in that of the Cerinthians, 
with a rejection of the principle of the Incarnation. 

It is of course often maintained that Ebionism—i.e. the 
doctrine that Christ was naturally born and was a mere 
man to whom the Divine Spirit united Himself at His 
baptism, anointing Him to be the Christ—is the original 
Jewish Christianity. To this we reply that there is 
no Christianity older than the Jewish Christianity of the 
documents used by St. Luke in the first two chapters of 
his Gospel and the opening chapters of the Acts. What 
appears to be the case, to judge from the early history 
of the Acts, is that all the stress at the beginning of 
the apostolic preaching was laid on the Messiahship 


1 See Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 167. I am concerned 
here only with the older ‘ Pharisaic Ebionism.’ The ‘ Gnostic Ebionism’ 
was a later formation, and, in part at least, admitted the miraculous birth. 
See Hippolytus, PAzlosoph. ix. 14; Origen, c. Cels. v. 61; and cf. Dict. of 
Chr. Biog., s. v. EBIONISM. The ‘ Nazarenes’ are also called Ebionites 
(Orig. c Ceds. ii. 1, v. 61), but they admitted the miraculous birth. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 53 


of Jesus, as vindicated in His resurrection from the 
dead and His glorification in heaven, whence He should 
come again to judge the quick and the dead. Many 
Jews no doubt became Christians confessing simply 
in this sense that ‘Jesus was Lord.’ ‘They had no 
theology of His person of a distinctive sort. It is this 
sort of Judaism, intensely conservative and tending to 
reaction, with which St. Paul is confronted. His anti- 
judaistic epistles are an attempt to persuade its adherents 
that they must recognize more fully the fresh departure 
involved in Christianity, or else go backwards and 
prove false to Christ. In his earlier epistles the point 
of controversy is not the person of Christ, but the basis 
of justification. But in ‘the epistles of the first captivity’ 
it is the person of Christ which is his starting-point 
for exhibiting the inadequacy of Judaism. Similarly 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an apostolic 
writer striving to lift Judaizing Christians out of an 
inadequate and reactionary position into a fuller con- 
ception of the person of Christ. More and more the 
decision whether ‘Judaizers’ would go forward into 
a full Christianity or slide backward out of the Christian 
Church turns on their conception of the person of 
Christ. In the document called the Didache we 
have a specimen of an inadequate, indecisive Jewish 
Christianity. It has indeed broken with legalism and 
circumcision—as a result in part of the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the Temple—but it has got no distinctive 
Christian theology beyond the barren recitation of 
the formula of baptism’. Out of such inadequate 


1 See my Church and the Ministry (Longmans), app. note L. 


54 Dissertations. 


Christianity, the Ebionites of Justin’s experience had 
their origin. We have it on the authority of Hege- 
sippus, who certainly was a Catholic Christian ', that the 
Church (of Jerusalem and Palestine) ‘continued a pure 
and uncorrupt virgin’—i.e. undefiled by ofex heresy— 
till the time of the martyrdom of Simeon, at the be- 
ginning of the second century*. This would naturally 
mean that about this time there arose the conscious 
antagonism of Ebionism to Catholic Christianity. 
Ebionism may thus be regarded as a real inheritor of 
the inadequate Judaism of St. Paul’s day, but it is 
a falling away from the Christian positions, which were 
not only held by St. Paul and St. John in his Gospel 
and Epistles, but belong also to the Apocalypse, to 
St. Peter’s Epistle, and are involved in the language of 
St. James about Christ . The full Messianic belief as 
it appears in the early speeches of the Acts was in 
fact found incompatible with anything short of the 
doctrine of the Incarnation‘. 

1 See Dict. of Chr. Btog., S. v- 

2 ap. Eus. H. £. iii. 32. Hitherto the heretical tendencies had been 
secret, év ddnAw mov oxoTiws pwdrevivTwv. 

3 The Apocalypse involves the full belief in the Incarnation: see the 
worship paid to Christ, v. 11-14, and compare xix. Io, xxii. 9; see also i. 8, 
17, xxi. 6, xxii. 13. St. Peter’s first Epistle involves the doctrine of the 
Incarnation, i.e. the pre-existence of Christ,see i. 11; for His identity with 
‘the Lord’ of the Old Testament, see iii. 14. St. James identifies Christ’s 
Lordship with that of God, especially in v. 7-11, 15, and cf. ii. 1. 


* Mr. Simcox, Early Church History, pp. 296 f., gives an excellent 
account of the origin of Ebionism. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 55 


§ 6. 


The theory of legend. 


But once more—and for the last time—it is suggested 
that the miraculous history of the nativity of Jesus 
Christ, with its accompanying incidents, is to be accounted 
for by a very general tendency to decorate the cradles of 
heroes with legendary stories, and especially with antici- 
pations of future greatness. Thus of our Lord’s human 
contemporary Augustus (B.C. 63-A.D. 14) it is recorded 
by Suetonius? (c. A.D. 120) on the authority of Julius 
Marathus, the Emperor’s freedman, that a few months 
before he was born a prodigy at Rome was publicly recog- 
nized as intimating that ‘nature was producing a king 
for the Roman people’; that the Senate in a panic decreed 
that no child of that year should be brought wp, but that 
those among the senators who had wives with child took 
care that the decree should not be published. Further 
he relates, on the authority of the Theologumena of 
Asclepiades of Mende, that Atia, whose second child 
was Augustus, had been visited, while she was sleeping 
with other matrons in the temple of Apollo, by a serpent 
which had left his mark on her person; from which it 
was concluded that Apollo, inthe guise of the serpent, 
had been the father of Augustus. 


1 Suet. Aug. c. 94. Renan (Zvang. p. 194) thinks this story in part 
accounts for the narrative of the massacre of the innocents: see also Estlin 
Carpenter, Synoptic Gospels, [Unitarian] Sunday School Association, 1890, 
p- 154. On Mr. Conybeare’s restatement of the legend theory see app. 
note A. 


56 Dissertations. 


Again, the earlier narrative of the Buddha! relates 
how ‘the knowledge of his birth was made known by 
rejoicing deities to a hermit named Asita, who thereon 
repaired to Suddhodana’s palace, saw the child in his 
glory surrounded by deities, &c., and announced to the 
Sakyans that the child was to be a Buddha ®.’ 

This story of the Buddha was possibly, and those 
of Augustus were certainly, current in the generation 
which followed the death of the persons to whom they 
relate. And it is not at all disputed that legends might 
have gathered rapidly around the infancy of Jesus 
Christ. .Nay, more: it is a fact that such legends did 
actually gather round both His infancy and that of His 
mother. The apocryphal gospels narrate the details 
of the infancy of Mary, and they tell also how, when 
Mary was to bring forth her child, Joseph went out to 
fetch a midwife and saw the birds stopping in mid-air 
and every living thing struck motionless ; how after the 
flight into Egypt the idols of Egypt recognized the child 
as the true God; how His swaddling-clothes worked 
miracles ; how He made clay birds to fly, turned boys 
into kids, taught His teachers, disputed on astronomy and 
metaphysics, and worked all manner of miracles. These 
stories are exactly of the same literary quality as the 
legends of Augustus and the Buddha, though it would 
seem as if the higher temper of the Church restrained for 


1 Referred to in this connexion by Estlin Carpenter (/. c.) as analogous to 
St. Luke ii. 25 ff. 

2 Copleston, Buddhism (Longmans, 1892) p. 34. Of the visit of Asita, 
Copleston says (p. 36) It ‘is not mentioned by Prof. Oldenberg among the 
points contained in the oldest tradition, but whatever be the date of the 
Sutta which contains it, it certainly belongs to the older cycle of traditions.’ 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 57 


a while the action of the vulgar imagination. But there 
is all the difference in the world between these silly 
tales and the narrative of the canonical Gospels with its 
marked reserves and spaces of silence. In the narrative 
of St. Luke the holy Child in the temple is only repre- 
sented as impressing the doctors with the intelligence 
of a perfect boy, not with a vulgar and miraculous 
ommniscience. 

The fact that there exists a tendency to decorate with 
legend the infancy of heroes can in itself be no argu- 
ment against our having a real history of certain rare 
events attendant upon the birth and childhood of Jesus. 
The tendency itself only points to the general recogni- 
tion of a truth—the truth that a hero or religious leader 
is in a special sense God-sent. In the case of our Lord 
two considerations in particular give a special credibility, 
apart from the question of the evidence for the narratives 
containing them, to the miraculous circumstances alleged 
to have attended His birth. For in the first place, His 
subsequent life was miraculous and His mode of exit 
from it’; and beyond all question this fact conditions 
the evidence as to His nativity. In the second place, the 
providential circumstances which attended His nativity 
are part of a much larger set of phenomena—the pheno- 
mena of prophecy. And reasonable criticism, if it has 
more or less modified our view of these phenomena, has 
not by any means destroyed their force. If then the 
advent of our Lord was providentially prepared for by 


1 The present argument is not (see above p. 5) with those who deny the 
miracles of Christ and His resurrection. 
2 Cf. Lax Mundi (Murray), small ed. pp. 253-4. 


58 Dissertations. 


forecasts of inspired men, extending over a long period of 
time—if there was certainly this supernatural prepara- 
tion for His advent—this fact gives greater probability 
to the prophecies of Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna, which 
again receive confirmation from the later, but not less 
prophetic, testimony of John the Baptist, one of the best 
accredited elements in the Gospel history. 

Under these circumstances we cannot but feel that, in 
all reason, the resemblances between the birth-stories of 
Jesus and those of the Buddha and other religious heroes 
must have been very much closer than in fact they are 
to justify the idea that they are simply similar growths. 
In fact in the older Buddha legend the nearest approach 
to resemblance lies in the visit and prognostication of 
Asita, as compared with the prophecies of Simeon. 
And of this visit of Asita Bishop Copleston remarks, ‘ It 
takes its particular shape from the visit of the astrologer 
—which is still almost universal among the Sinhalese—to 
prepare the horoscope of a new-born child? 

In the Jater and developed legend, which is given in 
one form in Prof. Rhys Davids Buddhist Birth Stories, 


1 Buddhism, pp. 35-6. 

? In Triibner’s Oriental Series, 1880, vol. xvi. pp. 58 ff. Another form of 
legend is translated in Beal’s Romantic Legend of Sékya Buddha (Triibner, 
1875). Jerome appears to be speaking inaccurately when he says (adv. Jovin. 
i. 42, ed. Vallarsi ii. p. 309) that it is handed down as a tradition ‘among 
the Gymnosophists of India that Buddha, the founder of their system, was 
brought forth by a w77gz from her side.’ One later legend was that (see 
Beal’s Romantic Legend, pp. 36 ff.) ‘At this time when Bédhisatwa was 
about to descend and in a spiritual manner enter the womb of Queen Maya 
{the mother of the Buddha] ; then that Maya on that very night addressed 
Suddhodana Raja, and said, ‘‘ Maharaja! I wish from the present night to 
undertake the eight special rules of self-discipline, to wit not to kill any- 
thing that lives, .. . to have no sexual pleasures, &c.” To this her husband 
consents, and the Buddha ‘‘descended from Tusita to sojourn on earth, 


Lhe Virgin Birth of our Lord. 59 


what strikes the present writer, as he reads it at 
length, is the profound contrast which it presents to 
the narratives of our Lord's birth and infancy; the 
points of resemblance seem as few as are consistent with 
the fact that, according to the later Buddhist belief, 
a quasi-divine Bodisat was becoming a Buddha by 
a human birth for the salvation of mankind. And it 
must be remarked that only by reading the legend 
itself at length can anything like a right impression 
be obtained. Such selected and adapted stories as 
are versified in Sir Edwin Arnold’s Light of Asia, or 
even such a summary as Professor Rhys Davids gives 
in his Hzbbert Lectures), give an impression thoroughly 
misleading. 

For clearness sake I restate this argument as follows: 

(1) The tendency to invest the birth of heroes with 
legendary stories and prognostications of future greatness 
proves in itself neither more nor less than a universal 
human tendency to believe in a special divinity attaching 
to specially great and good men, and therefore a special 
likelihood of divine intervention to signalize their birth. 


and entered on the right side of Queen Maya .. . and there rested in 
perfect quiet.” At once a bright light shone on the whole universe, 
every kind of physical portent occurs, while Maya in the midst of 
her sleep dreamed that a white elephant, with six tusks, &c., entered 
her side. In the morming again she addressed her husband, and said, 
after telling her dream, “‘ From this time forth 7 wz/7 no more partake of 
any sensual pleasure.”’ ‘Then after ten months’ gestation she gave birth to 
the Buddha. According to this account it is suggested indeed that the 
conception of the Buddha was without the intervention of the father; but 
his mother was not a virgin. Cf. on the subject, Rhys Davids’ Buddhism 
(S. P. C. K.) pp. 183-4. This legend of course is quite without historical 
value. On Buddhist books, see Copleston, of. cz¢. p. 23; Rhys Davids, 
Op. cit, pps 11 ff. 
1 Hibbert Lectures (Williams & Norgate, 1881) p. 148. 


60 Dissertations. 


This tendency is in itself rooted in a great truth, and 
can at least afford no argument in general against such 
special divine manifestations having at some time or 
times occurred. 

(2) It could only afford an argument against such 
divine manifestations in the particular case of the birth 
of Jesus Christ if the supposed manifestations in this 
case were of a markedly generic type, i.e. bore very 
much closer resemblances than in fact they do to those 
which are pretended in other cases. 

(3) In fact in the case of our Lord ‘the distinction 
between history and legend could not be better marked 
than by the reserve of the canonical and the vulgar tattle 
of the apocryphal Gospels !.’ 

(4) Moreover the particular phenomena, prophetic 
or miraculous, attendant on our Lord’s birth cannot be 
separated from the subsequent miracles of the life and 
resurrection and the whole phenomenon of prophecy 
from Micah and Isaiah down to John the Baptist. 

We conclude therefore that we may simply pay at- 
tention to the positive evidence which indicates that 
the histories of the nativity are trustworthy ”. 

But setting aside supposed heathen parallels, it is 
more opportune to ask whether the circumstances of our 
Lord’s birth can be regarded as mere repetitions of 
Old Testament incidents. Is the story of the birth of 
John the Baptist a mere repetition of that of Samuel, and 

1 Dr. A. M. Fairbairn, Studtes in the Life of Christ (Hodder & 
Stoughton, 1881) p. 31. 

* I have assumed in this discussion that the Christian story was not 


influenced by the Buddhist—which is certain—and also that the Buddhist 
stories are not reflections of the Christian. 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 61 


the perils of the Christ of the perils of Moses!? No, we 
reply, unless there is zo similarity in historical incidents 
and zo similarity in the methods of God. But for our 
present purpose we only need to insist that the Old 
Testament afforded no analogy for the circumstances of 
our Lord’s birth. The perils of Moses resemble those of 
the infant Christ, but very remotely, and there is no 
analogy in the Old Testament for the Virgin Birth. 

It has however been alleged? that the language of 
Philo, ‘whose influence may be traced in almost every 
page of the fourth Gospel, suggests in the case of the 
Old Testament mothers of saints a sort of ‘ miraculous 
conception’ without the intervention of a man, which 
may have afforded a basis for the attribution of a 
miraculous conception to Mary. For instance ‘ Moses,’ 
says Philo, ‘introduces Sarah as pregnant whex alone 
and as being visited by God, 

To this suggestion the answer is twofold. (1) The 
language of Philo is characteristic and peculiar. He 
calls attention® to the supposed fact that in the case 
of Old Testament saints—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses 
—no mention is made of their ‘knowing’ their wives. 
This it is explained is because the woman symbolizes 
the senses from which the lovers of wisdom must keep 


1 Renan, Evang. pp. t8g-9g1 ‘La légende de Samuel engendra celle de 
Jean-Baptiste... . Quant aux dangers dont on supposait que fut entourée 
V’enfance de Jésus, c’était la une imitation de l’enfance de Moise, qu’un roi 
aussi voulut faire mourir, et qui fut obligé de se sauver a l’étranger.’ 

2 The Kernel and the Husk, pp. 270 ff. This argument has been recently 
repeated by Mr. Conybeare in the Academy in connexion with the question 
raised by the Codex Sinaiticus, on which see appended note B. 

8 See esp. de Cherub. pp. 115-6, and cf. the account of Bethuel in de 


Profugis, p. 457+ 


62 Dissertations. 


themselves aloof. Those who are called their wives, 
such as Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Zipporah, were in 
name women, but in fact virtues. Such virtues can 
conceive seed ‘only from God,’ though—as God needs 
nothing for Himself--they conceive seed zo the men 
who are their lovers. It is for this reason that Holy 
Scripture uses such modes of speech as indicate that 
these women, i.e. virtues, conceive for their husbands 
indeed but from God. Thus (Gen. xxi. 1) Sarah is in- 
troduced as pregnant when God visits her alone. Of Leah 
it is said (xxix. 31) that God ‘opened her womb,’ which 
is the work of the man. Rebecca (xxv. 21) conceived 
divinely in answer to Isaac’s prayer. Again ‘apart from 
supplication and prayer Moses having taken to wife the 
winged and lofty virtue Zipporah found her with child 
of no mortal! The meaning of this mystical language 
of his Philo subsequently guards. Men, he says, make 
virgins into wives. God, by spiritual relationship with 
souls, makes wives into virgins. ‘The scripture (Jer. 
iii. 4. Ixx) is careful to describe God as the husband 
not of a virgin but of virginity.’ Now all this argument, 
which is quite in the mystical gnosticizing manner of 
Philo, is wholly alien to the spirit both of the Old 
Testament and of the New. We notice, for example, 
that when St. Paul is speaking in the case of Isaac of 
a ‘birth after the spirit 2, he shows no tendency to pass 
like Philo to the idea of ‘virginity, or to shrink from 
associating divine action with the language descriptive 
of the ordinary physical process of generation. Further 


1 This seems built on no words in the biblical account. 
2 Gal; ‘iv. 22; 20- 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 63 


there is no evidence justifying the belief that such 
a mode of thought as is found in Philo existed in the 
Palestinian Judaism out of which the narratives of the 
nativity have their origin. 

(2) Setting aside the question whether Philo did or 
did not influence the fourth Gospel, it may be taken 
for certain he did not influence the language of the 
authorities upon which St. Matthew and St. Luke 
depend!. On the whole we may say that there is no 
connexion at all probable between the thoughts and 
language of the narratives of the nativity and the 
speculations of Philo about spiritual virginity. 


§ 7. 
The connexion of doctrine and fact. 


What has been hitherto attempted is both to 
vindicate the historical character of the records of our 
Lord’s miraculous birth at Bethlehem and also to show 
that in the earliest tradition of the Christian churches, 
as far as we can trace it, the belief in the Virgin Birth 
is found as a constant accompaniment of the confession 
of His Incarnation. What we have finally to do is 
to show cause why we should regard the belief in the 
Virgin Birth as, in fact, inseparable from belief in the 

1 The author of The Kernel and the Husk assumes that the idea of the 


virginity of Mary was of Gez¢z/e origin, which is contrary to the evidence. 
The documents of the nativity are intensely Jewish. 


64 Dissertations. 


Incarnation and, even more from belief in the sinless 
Second Adam. 

For beyond a question, our opinion as to the insepara- 
bility of the supposed fact from the Christian idea will 
affect our estimate of the evidence. The _ historical 
evidence for our Lord’s birth of a virgin is in itself 
strong and cogent. But it is not such as to compel 
belief. There are ways to dissolve its force. To pro- 
duce belief there is needed—in this as in almost all 
other questions of historical fact—besides cogent evi- 
dence, also a perception of the meaning and naturalness, 
under the circumstances, of the event to which evidence 
is borne. To clinch the historical evidence for our 
Lord’s virgin birth there is needed the sense, that being 
what He was, His human birth could hardly have been 
otherwise than is implied in the virginity of His mother. 

The logic of the matter may be represented on the 
sround of the Incarnation. Granted that the eternal 
Son of God did at a certain moment of time take flesh 
by a real incarnation in the womb of Mary,—granted 
that He was born as man, without change of personality 
or addition of another personality, but simply by the 
assumption of a new nature and by an entrance into new 
conditions of life and experience—granted in this sense 
the incarnation of the Son of God in the womb of 
Mary, can we conceive it to have taken place by the 
ordinary process of generation? Do not we inevitably 
associate with the ordinary process of generation the 
production of a new personality? Must not the denial 
of the Virgin Birth involve the position that Jesus was 
simply a new human person in whatever specially 


lhe Virgin Birth of our Lord. 65 


intimate relations with God? This seems to the present 
writer to be very probably the case, but at the same 
time to be a question very difficult to argue. But the 
argument becomes almost irresistible when the question 
is removed from the idea of incarnation strictly con- 
sidered, to the associated idea of the sinless humanity, 
the humanity of a ‘Second Adam.’ 

Jesus Christ was a new departure in human life. 
Philosophers of different ages, from Plato to Carlyle, 
have been found scoffing at contemporary reformers, 
on the ground that their proposed reforms did not, 
could not, go deep enough to get at the root of the 
evils of human society. What is wanted to remedy 
these evils is a fresh departure—in some sense, a new 
birth, or regeneration of humanity!. So moral philo- 
sophers have reasoned: but it has been a matter of 
words. Jesus Christ alone has, in any adequate sense, 
translated this logical demand into actual reality. In 
Him we really find a ‘Second Adam,’ a new manhood. 
He appears among men in all the fulness of human 
faculties, sympathies, capacities of action and suffering ; 
He was in all points such as we are ercepi sin. But what 
an exception! As Jesus moves among the men of His 
day, as His historical presentation renews His image 
for each generation, by how great a gulf is He 
separated in His sinlessness, His perfection, from other 
men. He is very man, but new man. And with this 
quality of His person coincides His method. He will 
not take other men as He finds them and make the best 


1 See Carlyle, Past and Present, bk. i. ch. 4 ‘ Morrison’s pill’; Plato, 
Republic—the argument of the whole work, especially bk. iv. pp. 425-6. 


F 


66 Dissertations. 


of them. He demands of them the acceptance of a new 
birth; the fundamental reconstruction of their moral 
being on a new basis, and that basis Himself. ‘ Except 
a man be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of 
God.’ ‘Except ye turn’—with a radical conversion of 
the moral tendency of your being—‘ except ye turn and 
become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into 
the kingdom of heaven!. Christ demands, then, a funda- 
mental moral reconstruction of humanity, and He makes 
it possible because He offers to men a new life. He 
offers to reproduce in each man who will believe in 
Him and yield himself to Him, the quality of His 
own life by the bestowal of His own Spirit. Him- 
self the New Man, He can make all men new. But 
granted that in this fundamental sense Christ Jesus is 
a new moral creation, is it possible that this new 
moral creation can have involved anything short of 
a new physical creative act? Does not all we know 
of physical heredity, all we know of the relation of spirit 
and body, lead us to believe that the miracle of a new 
moral creation must mean the miracle of a new physical 
creation? If the moral character was new, must: not 
the stuff of the humanity have been new too? Must 
not the physical generation of the Second Adam have 
been such as to involve at once His community with 
our nature and His exemption from it? I am not lay- 
ing all the stress on this sort of logic. I would, here 
and elsewhere, keep @ priorz arguments in their place. 
But this logic seems to me at least strong enough to 
clinch the historical argument or even to condition the 


1 St. John iii. 3.5: St...Matt, savin. 3: 


The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 67 


historical discussion by an antecedent expectation that 
the birth of the Second Adam must have been physically 
as well as morally miraculous. 


I have come to the end of the task which I set myself 
at the beginning of this discussion. Something I trust 
has been done to show on the one hand the weak- 
ness of the objections brought against the historical 
character of the narratives of the nativity and on the 
other hand the strength of the positive ground on which 
they stand. We cannot be accused of an uncritical, 
unhistorical disposition in accepting the Virgin Birth 
of Jesus Christ as a fact of history. Throughout this 
discussion I have, for obvious reasons, avoided resting 
anything on the question of authority. But considering 
the position which the Virgin Birth holds in the creeds, 
it cannot be denied that the authority of the Christian 
Church is committed to it as a fact, beyond recall. To 
admit that its historical position is really doubtful 
would be to strike a mortal blow at the authority of 
the Christian Church as a guide to religious truth in 
any real sense. Such a result is in itself an argument 
against the truth of any position which would tend to 
produce it; for it is very difficult to scrutinize narrowly 
those articles of the Christian faith which have really 
been believed and taught in the Church semper, ubique, 
ab omnibus, without being struck with the conviction 
that a divine providence has been guarding the Church 

F 2 


68 Dissertations. 


in her production of such definitions or formal de- 
clarations of her faith as can really be called catholic— 
cuarding her from asserting anything which can reason- 
ably be called unwarranted or superstitious; and such 
a conviction does in itself create a presumption against 
any conclusion which would invalidate any single article 
of the original creed. 


PS Silk bowl ONE 





THE een SscrousNeESs OF 
OUR EOD IN Ells MOK Pasege Le Ee 


THE subject of the following discussion is our Lord's 
consciousness during the period of His human and mortal 
life. In the first part (I) what appears 'to be the view of 
the New Testament writers will be provisionally stated 
with the evidence upon which it rests. In the second 
part (II) the teaching of the Church on the subject will 
be exhibited at times in outline, at other times more 
fully, and its relation will appear to the provisional 
conclusion already reached. In the third part (III) the 
conclusion will be restated, its relation to Church 
authority examined and its rationality vindicated. 

Any writer who cares for Catholic sentiment and 
traditional reverence—nay more, any writer who realizes 
in any degree the limits which are set to human thought 
—must approach this subject with great unwillingness. 
But there is so much in the New Testament directly 
bearing upon it that if the character in the Gospel is to 
be a real object of contemplation, for the intellect as well 
as) fer the heart, it-can hardly be avoided.) That the 
actual evidence has been in fact so little considered 
has led to serious dangers in the way of unscriptural 


72 Dissertations. 


theorizing. So that it appears to the present writer 
that to refuse to consider the subject, in full view 
of the New Testament language about it, would be 
a false reverence, or what Hilary of Poitiers calls an 
‘irreligious solicitude for God 1.’ 

But if so anxious a subject has to be approached at 
all, one may be pardoned for dwelling a little by way 
of preface on the place which it holds with reference to 
the creed of Christians, and on the temper in which it 
ought to be approached. 

First, then, this is not a question which ought to be 
encountered on the road towards orthodoxy. Its logical 
place is, I venture to think, that in which I have tried, 
summarily, to treat it in the Lampton Lectures of 1891, 
i.e. after faith in the Incarnation has been established. 
It requires only a little thought to see that the belief 
that God is incarnate in Jesus Christ does not carry 
with it to any tolerably cautious mind one certain and 
necessary conclusion, a priorz, as to the question of the 
consciousness of the incarnate person. And conversely 
the utterances in the Gospels which must determine our 
conclusion on this mysterious subject will not be found 
to touch those moral and theological claims, those 
spiritual and physical powers of Jesus Christ, which 
justify, or rather postulate, the belief in the Incarnation. 
It is hoped that these assertions will be justified in the 
course of our discussion to the minds of any who feel 
doubtful about them at starting. For the present they 


1 de Trin. iv. 6‘O stultos atque impios metus, et irreligiosam de Deo 
sollicitudinem !’ The exclamation has reference to the fear professed by the 
Arians lest by confessing the eternity of Christ they should do violence to 
His nature as Son. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 73 


are assumed. And in accordance with this assumption 
the truth of the Incarnation is, in this essay, taken for 
eranted, and, though no special view is put forward as to 
the nature of inspiration, the Janguage of our Lord in the 
Gospels about Himself is taken to be historically true. 
Secondly, the question of our Lord's consciousness is 
not-—granted Fis infallibility as a teacher—one which 
ought to harass the ordinary life of faith. Thousands 
of pious Christians have believed that the eternal ‘Son 
of God for us men and for our salvation came down 
from heaven and was incarnate, and was made man, and 
was crucified, and rose again,’ and on the basis of this 
faith have read their Gospels and taken the real human 
experience and sympathy of our Lord for truth in 
simple trust, without any inquiries into the condition 
of our Lord’s consciousnesss seriously arising. And 
this is quite right. People who do not feel bound to 
embark upon the difficulties of mental philosophy as 
regards men in general, still less as regards God, have 
no cause to be disturbed in regard to similar problems 
in relation to the person of Him who is both God and 
man. And when the questions are reached, if we realize 
the difficulty of understanding the human mind and the 
certain incomprehensibility of that which is divine, we 
shall not even imagine that the problems here raised can 
be fully sounded or solved. We shall bow in awful 
reverence before the deep things of God, but we shall, 
none the less, in this as in other departments of inquiry, 
seek to go as far as we can, and at least to be true to all 
the facts which are, and can be brought to be, at our 
disposal. Nor shall we be surprised if more accurate 


74 Dissertations. 


investigations require in us some change of mind, not in 
the region of our central faith, but in its more outlying 
districts. For myself as an author I would only ask 
to be read carefully by those who wish to criticize me, 
so that, as far as it is given me to express my meaning 
plainly, I may be judged for what I have said and not 
for what I have not. Throughout this discussion I shall 
be so frequently citing authorities that I may be for- 
given for citing, as a conclusion to these few words 
of preface, some passages from the father already referred 
to, Hilary of Poitiers—passages which admirably express 
the temper of mind required in approaching either the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which was Hilary’s subject, 
or our Lord’s consciousness as man, which is what lies 
before us. 


(1) That such inquiries are not necessary for faith. 


De Trin. x. 70 ‘Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam 
vitam quaestiones vocat, nec multiplici eloquentis facun- 
diae genere sollicitat. In absoluto nobis ac facili est 
aeternitas, Iesum et suscitatum a mortuis per Deum 
credere et ipsum esse dominum confiteri. Nemo ita- 
que ea quae ob ignorationem nostram dicta sunt ad 
occasionem irreligiositatis usurpet.’ 


(2) As regards the incomprehensibility of God and that 


we can know Him only through His own disclosure of 
Flimself. 


‘Perfecta scientia est sic Deum scire ut licet non 
ignorabilem tamen inenarrabilem scias’ (ii. 7). 

‘Animus humanus, nisi per fidem donum Spiritus 
hauserit, habebit quidem naturam Deum intelligendi 
sed lumen scientiae non habebit’ (ii. 34). 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 75 


‘Nec enim concipiunt imperfecta perfectum, neque 
quod ex alio subsistit absolute vel auctoris sui potest 
intelligentiam obtinere vel propriam’ (iii. 24). 

‘Neque enim nobis ea natura est ut se in caelestem 
cognitionem suis viribus efferat. A Deo discendum est 
quod de Deo intelligendum sit ; quia non nisi se auctore 
cognoscitur . . . Loquendum ergo non aliter de Deo est 
quam ut ipse ad intelligentiam nostram de se locutus 
ese (v.22). 


(3) As regards the readiness to change our minds and 
to advance to more accurate knowledge of divine things. 


‘Et si forte humanae conditionis errore praesumptum 
aliquid sensu tenebimus, profectum intelligentiae per reve- 
lationis gratiam non recusemus. Ne intellexisse aliquid 
semel suo sensu ad id valeat ut pudeat rectius aliquid 
demutando sentire’ (xi. 24). 


(4) Lhe author's request for fair-minded readers. 


‘Optimus lector est qui dictorum intelligentiam ex- 
spectet ex dictis potius quam imponat, et retulerit magis 
quam attulerit, neque cogat id videri dictis contineri quod 
ante lectionem praesumpserit intelligendum’ (i. 18). 


76 Dissertations. 


i: 


THE VIEW OF OUR LORD’S CONSCIOUSNESS DURING 
HIS HUMAN “AND MORTAL LIFE WHICH IS PRE- 
SENTED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: 


It should be explained at the beginning of this part of 
our inquiry that the question whether the views of all 
the New Testament writers as to our Lord's person and 
consciousness are in substantial agreement or not, is not 
here’ directly argued. Jt is plain that there is inde- 
pendence among them, differences of point of view and 
different stages of theological development. Thus, in 
the speeches of the early part of the Acts, our Lordms 
simply regarded as the Messiah; in other parts of the 
New Testament the view of His authority as Messianic 
seems to be merged into the view of it as strictly 
divme: leis ‘the Lord’ or ‘the SonjotGods ain 
St. Paul and St. John the divine sonship of Jesus Christ 
appears as the central point of a definite Christian 
theology: and it must be noted that St. Paul and 
St. John plainly regard their theology not as the result 
of their own speculation, but, in the strictest sense, as 
revealed truth!. In each of the Gospels both views of 
our Lord’s person exist, and closer examination con- 
tradicts the still current opinion that in the synoptists He 

‘ Cf. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 353 ‘It [the inspiration of the 
apostles] is more sustained than the inspiration of the prophets in the Old 


Testament; it extends not merely to single truths revealed for a special 
object, but to a body of connected truths, a system of theology.’ 


Lhe Consciousness of our Lord. 77 


appears as the Messiah, the Son of Man, in the fourth 
Gospel as the incarnate Word of God. The divine son- 
ship proper emerges out of the Messianic claim in the 
common synoptic tradition and the Messianic character 
is prominent in St. John. But still there is a difference 
in the point of view, and the strictly divine nature of Jesus 
is more emphatic in the fourth Gospel than in the other 
three. Thus there exist among the writers of the New 
Testament differences in point of view as regards the 
person of Christ and distinct stages of doctrinal develop- 
ment. But that these differences are not discrepancies 
may be best shown by the fact that they admit of 
being brought together in one comprehensive theory 
without violence to any. 


$1. 
The evidence of the Gospels". 


The conditions of our Lord’s early childhood are 
veiled from us. Nothing is told us about His education, 
nor are we given any glimpse of Him at the period 
when men learn most from those outside them, but He 
grew so truly as a human child that Joseph and His 
mother had not been led to expect from Him conduct 
incompatible with childhood, when they took Him up 
with them to the temple in His thirteenth year. This 
must mean that He was taught as the young are taught; 


* What follows is largely, but not altogether, repeated from my Bampton 
Lectures, pp. 145 ff. 


78 Dissertations. 


and in the temple courts He impressed the doctors as 
a child of marvellous insight and intelligence. Not but 
what, even then, there was present to Him the con- 
sciousness of His unique sonship: ‘Wist ye not,’ He 
said to His parents, ‘that I must be about my Father’s 
business '?’ but that consciousness of divine sonship did 
not, we are led to suppose, interfere with His properly 
human growth. ‘The child grew and waxed strong, 
says St. Luke, ‘ becoming full of wisdom, and the favour 
of God was upon him. Again, ‘ Jesus advanced in 
wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men ?;’ 
—the phrase being borrowed from the record of Samuel's 
childhood, with the specifications added, ‘in wisdom and 
stature. There was a real growth in mental apprehen- 
sion and spiritual capacity, as in bodily stature. 

The divine sonship is impressively asserted at the 
baptism of Jesus by John in the river Jordan®. The 
pre-eminent dignity of the person of Jesus appears indeed 
nowhere in the Gospels more strikingly than in His 


1 St. Luke ii. 49 év rots Tov matpds pov, ‘among my Father's matters,’ 
or, perhaps, ‘in my Father’s house’ (as R. V.). The expression ‘ my 
Father’ appears to involve, in some measure, a repudiation of Mary’s phrase 
‘thy father, as applied to Joseph (ver. 48). I think it is plain that our 
Lord claims a certain unique sonship, but was the consciousness of this 
derived from meditation on such phrases in the O. T. as ‘ He shall call me, 
Thou art my father’ (Ps. lxxxix. 26), the child Jesus being already con- 
scious of His Messianic mission as Son of David? or was it the absolute 
consciousness of divine sonship? To answer this question requires, per- 
haps, more knowledge than we possess. But it is plain that to our Lord’s 
mind during His ministry the office of the Messiah, including as it did the 
office of universal and ultimate Judge, was inseparable from proper divine 
sonship. The Christ was also the Son of God: cf. above, p. 17, n. 8, for 
a very brief discussion of the relation of the A/esstanzc to the divzne claims 
of our Lord. 

= St. Luke ii, 40,525 cl. 1 Samcay a0: * St. Maricay alae 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 79 


relation to John the Baptist, as described in all the 
Gospels; and that this pre-eminent dignity carried with 
it throughout our Lord’s ministerial life a consciousness 
of properly divine sonship, it is not possible for any one 
to doubt who accepts, even generally, the historical char- 
acter of the synoptic Gospels and of St. John’s. If His 
eternal pre-existence is plainly asserted by Him only in 
St. John, yet this is not separable from the essential 
sonship asserted in the synoptists*. But this conscious- 
ness of divine sonship is represented as co-existing with 
a really human development of life. He receives as man 
the unction of the Holy Ghost ; He was led as man ‘of 
the Spirit into the wilderness,’ and hungered, and was 
subjected as man to real temptations of Satan, such as 
made their appeal to properly human faculties and-were 
met by the free employment of human will. He was 
‘in all points tempted like as we are, apart from sin.’ 
When He goes out to exercise His ministry, He bases 
His authority on the unction of the Spirit according to 
Isaiah’s prophecy. ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,’ 
He reads, ‘ because he anointed me to preach.’ ‘God, 
comments St. Peter, ‘anointed Jesus of Nazareth with 
the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing 
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil ; 
for God was with him*. Thus if His miraculous power 
appears as the appropriate endowment of His person, it 


1 The essential sonship is in the synoptic Gospels expressed in such 
passazes as St, Matt. xi, 27, St. Mark xii. 0, 37, xiii. 22, xiv. 62, and 
the parallel passages. 

2 Hebr. iv. 15. On the temptations ‘apart from sin,’ see Bampton 
Lectures, pp. 221-222. 

$ St. Luke iv. 18. = Acts x. 38: 


80 Dissertations. 


was still a gift of God to Him as man. ‘The power of 
the Lord was with him to heal,’ says the evangelist: ‘by 
the Spirit of God,’ He Himself declared, He cast out 
devils! : and St. John, in recording the words of Jesus 
before the raising of Lazarus, would teach us to see, at 
least in some of His miracles, what is suggested also 
elsewhere by our Lord’s gestures, a power dependent on 
the exercise of prayer. ‘Father, I thank thee that thou 
didst hear me”.’ 

Once more, to come more closely to our proper 
subject, while as very Son Jesus knows the Father as 
He is known of Him and reveals Him to whom He 
will, He does not appear to teach out of an absolute 
divine omniscience, but rather as conditioned by human 
nature. It is surely beyond question that our Lord is 
represented in the Gospels as an infallible no less than 
as a. sinless® teacher, ‘He “challenges criticism. (Ele 
speaks in the tone of authority only justifiable to one 
who taught with absolute certainty ‘the word of God.’ 
‘Heaven and earth, He said, ‘shall pass away, but my 
words shall not pass away +.’ But infallibility is not 
omniscience. Again it is beyond question that our 
Lord’s consciousness, not only towards God but towards 
the world, was extraordinary. Thus He frequently 
exhibits a supernatural knowledge, insight, and fore- 
sight. He saw Nathanael under the fig-tree, and knew 
the incident in the life of the Samaritan woman, and 
told Peter how he would find the piece of money in the 


1 St. Luke v. 17; St. Matt. xii. 28. 

4-St. John xi. 41; St. Matt. xiv. 195 St. Mark vil) 945 (ch v.19; 

* On our Lord’s sinlessness and impeccability, see 2. Z. pp. 165 ff., also 
Dek. # St. Matt. axxiv. 35. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 81 


fish’s mouth, and the disciples how they would find the 
colt tied up in the village and the man bearing a pitcher 
of water to take them to the upper chamber. He dis- 
cerned ‘from the beginning’ the heart of Judas1, and 
prophesied the denial of Peter, and had in view His 
own passion, death, and resurrection the third day. 
But all such supernatural illumination is, if of higher 
quality, yet analogous to that vouchsafed to prophets 
and apostles’. It is not necessarily divine conscious- 
ness. It suggests in itself no more than the remark 
of the woman of Samaria, ‘I perceive that thou art 
a prophet *.’ And it coincides in the case of our Lord 
with apparent limitations of knowledge. The evidence 
for this we may group under four heads. 

(1) There are constantly attributed to our Lord human 
experiences which seem inconsistent with practical om- 
niscience. Thus He expresses surprise at the conduct of 
His parents, and the unbelief of men, and the barren- 
ness of the fig-tree, and the slowness of His disciples’ 
faith *. He expresses surprise on many occasions, and 
therefore, we must believe, really felt it; and on other 
occasions He asks for information and receives it, as 
when He came down from the Mount of Trans- 

1 St. John vi. 64. The words ‘from the beginning’ apply undoubtedly to 
the early days of His ministry, when He first began to gather around Him 
a circle of personal disciples. Cf. xv. 27, xvi. 4; Acts i. 21, 22. 

* 2 Kings vi. 12 ‘Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king 
of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber.’ Cf. v. 26‘ Went 
not mine heart with thee?’ Acts v. 3, 4 (St. Peter discerning the sin of 
Ananias), xxi. 11-14 (the foreknowledge of St. Paul’s fate). 

* St. John iv. 19. Cf. St. Luke vii. 39 ‘ This man, zf he were a prophet, 
would have perceived who and what manner of woman this is which 


toucheth him, that she is a sinner.’ - 
* ot. Luke ik 4959 5t. Mark vi. 6, xi. 13, iv. 40, Vil. 18, vill. 21, xiv. 37. 


G 


82 Dissertations. 


figuration and was presented with the child which the 
disciples had failed to cure, He asked the father, like 
any physician, ‘How long time is it since this hath 
come unto him?’ and when He is on His way to heal 
Lazarus, He asks ‘Where have ye laid him!?’ It is 
of course a common form of human speech for men to 
ask questions in order to draw out the feelings of 
others or to reproach them, without any implication of 
ignorance on their own part. Thus some of our Lord's 
questions are not asked for the sake of information *— 
and this is apparently true of all those asked after the 
resurrection ’—but there are a number on the other 
hand of which this is not at all a natural explanation. 
They represent a natural need of information. It is in 
agreement with this that, as St. Luke especially teaches 
us*, He lived in the constant exercise of prayer to 
God, which is the characteristic utterance of human 
faith and trust, that human faith and trust of which 
the Epistle to the Hebrews sees in Jesus the supreme 
example ®. 

This reality of human faith becomes more obvious as 
the anxieties and terrors of the passion close in upon 
Him. He shows us then the spectacle of true man, 
weighted with a crushing burden, the dread of a cata- 


1 St. Mark ix. 21, ef. vi. 38, viii. 5 ; St. Luke vili. 30; St. John xi. 34. 

2 e.g. St. Matt. xvi. 8-11, and esp. St. John vi. 6 ‘ This he said to prove 
him, for he himself knew what he would do.’ 

®. St. Luke xxiv. 17,:19, 413 St. fehm xx. 15, 29 (R. V. margin) xxiye; 
15-17. 

*- St. Luke iii: 25, .W. 16; viz 12, 1 2S; °28, <x0l. 3254 ae 

5 Hebr. ii. 13 ‘I will put my trust in him’; xii. 2 ‘the captain of 
our faith,’ i.e. leader in the life of faith ; see Westcott 272 Joc. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 83 


strophe awful and unfathomed. No doubt it is implied 
that the burden was voluntarily accepted ?, but accepted 
it was in all its human reality. It was only because 
the future was not clear that He could pray: ‘O my 
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from 
me”. Boldly simple is the language of the inspired 
commentator on this scene of the agony: ‘Christ,’ he 
says, ‘in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers 
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him 
that was able to save him from death, and having been 
heard for his godly fear, though he was a son, yet 
learned obedience by the things which he suffered *.’ No 
language less than this would correspond with the 
historical narrative, but it is language which implies 
very strongly the exercise of human faith in our Lord's 
case; nor is it possible that He could have cried with 
real meaning upon the cross, ‘My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?’ unless He had really entered 
into the experience which originally prompted that cry 
of the psalmist, into the trial of the soul from whom 
God hides His face, the trial of the righteous man, as 
far as his own perception goes, forsaken. 

(2) Though our Lord knew so well, and told so plainly, 
the moral conditions of the great judgement to come, 
and discerned so clearly its particular application in the 
destruction of Jerusalem, yet He expressly declared, as 
St. Matthew as well as St. Mark assures us, that of the 
day and the hour of His second coming no one knew 
except the Father, ‘not even the angels of heaven, 

+ St. John xii..27, x. 113 St. Matt. xxvi. 53, 54. 

2 St; Matt. xxvi. 30; * Fiebr y. 7, 3. 

G 2 


84 Dissertations. 


neither the Son!’; and we cannot hold this declaration 
apart from the other indications that are given us of 
a limited human consciousness. It may fairly be 
contrasted with the phrase used to the apostles after 
the resurrection”, ‘It is not for you to know times or 
seasons, which the Father hath set within his own au- 
thority.’ More than this: no one can study attentively 
the eschatological discourses of our Lord in the various 
accounts given us of them, without reaching the con- 
viction that they are strictly of the prophetic quality and 
exhibit the limitations proper to prophecy—that is to 
say, they announce the moral and spiritual conditions of 
the judgement to come on the Jewish nation and on the 
world at large; but they cannot be rightly described as 
history written beforehand by the hand of omniscience. 
It is therefore quite misleading to argue, as many 
orthodox persons have argued in ancient and modern 
times, that one who knew so much as these discourses 
disclose must have also known (in fact) the day and 
hour of the end. 

(3) A similar impression is left on our mind by the 
Gospel of St. John. Unmistakeably is our Lord there 
put before us as the eternal Son of the Father incarnate, 

1 St. Matt. xxiv. 36 [R.V. This reading will, I suppose, stand preferred 
in spite of the fact that the new Sinaitic palimpsest omits the words ‘neither 
the Son’]; St. Mark xiii. 32. It has been suggested that ignorance is here 
predicted of ‘the Son,’ used absolutely, not of the incarnate Son in the 
period of His humiliation merely. This seems to me a greatly overstrained 
argument. The Son was speaking of Himself as He then was. 

? Acts i. 7 (R. V.) After the resurrection our Lord speaks of the day 
of the end as reserved in ‘ the Father’s power.’ But He does not any longer 
suggest that He is ignorant of the day; and He seems to speak of Himself 


as not only foreseeing but controlling the time of St. John’s death ina manner 
unlike to that in which He spoke in His mortal life (St. John xxi. 22). 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 85 


and unmistakeably is the inner, essential unity of the 
Son and the Father and their continual abiding one in 
the other there insisted upon’, but it also appears that 
the Son of the Father is ving and teaching under 
restrained human conditions: He has ‘come down’ 
from the heaven where He ‘ was before’ with the Father, 
He has been ‘sanctified and sent into the world,’ He 
has ‘come out from God,’ He ‘has left the glory.” Thus 
He ‘speaks the words of God’ indeed infallibly, but it 
is, as St. John tells us, because God ‘giveth not the 
Spirit by measure, that is, because of the complete 
endowment of His manhood. He Himself says that He 
accomplishes ‘what the Father taught him’: that He 
can do only ‘what he sees the Father doing’: that the 
Father makes to Him a progressive revelation, ‘he shall 
show him greater works than these’: that the Father 
‘hath given him commandment what he should say and 
what he should speak’: that the Father ‘hath given 


aH 30, RVs 20 22), 

3 vi. 62, x. 36, xili. 3, xvi. 27, xvii. 5. In iii. 13 the words 6 dy év 7a 
ovpavg—‘ which is in heaven’—are very doubtful; see Westcott 727 Joc. 
‘ Heaven’ and ‘glory’ are apparently what He had abandoned. ‘God,’ that 
is ‘ the Father,’ is still with Him: and therefore ‘ glory’ of a different sort 
which He can communicate to His disciples (xvii. 22, cf. i. 14). [In the 
recently discovered Sinaitic palimpsest the Syriac translates ‘the Son of 
Man which is from heaven.”] 

5 iii, 34 Ov ydp dméoTeiAey 6 Beds TA fPnyaTa TOU Beod dadrel, od yap ex 
pétpov didiwoww +O mvedpa, The words may be translated, ‘the Spirit 
giveth not \to Him] by measure’; hardly, I think, ‘he |the Son] gzveth 
not the Spiret by measure. The unmeasured, full, gift bestowed upon the 
Son is put in contrast to the measured partial gift which in Rabbinic belief 
was bestowed upon prophets, and in Christian belief upon members of the 
Church (1 Cor. xii. 11); cf. Alford zz loc. What the exact content of the 
full human endowment would have been we cannot say @ préord. But it 
was a human endowment, an endowment of our Lord as man, and suggests 
therefore properly human limitations. 


86 Dissertations. 


him’ the divine ‘name, that is, the positive revelation 
of Himself, to communicate to the apostles: that He has 
made known to them ‘all things that he kad heard of 
the Father’ or ‘the words which the Father had given 
him!’ The idea is thus decidedly suggested of 
a message of definite content made over to our Lord 
to impart. Now, even though we bear in mind to the 
fullest extent the eternal subordination and receptivity 
of the Son, it still remains plain that words such as have 
been quoted express Him as receiving and speaking 
under the limitations of a properly human state. 

We must also notice that our Lord repeatedly speaks 
of that inner leading by which the divine love draws 
human souls and prepares them to welcome the Christ, 
as not His own but the Fathers: Ele speaks of it as 
belonging to the Father, as distinguished from A/zm- 
self. ‘All that which the Father giveth me, shall 
come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no 
wise cast out. ‘No man can come to me, except the 
Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him 
up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And 
they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath 
heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto 
me? Now of course this inner leading belongs to the 
eternal Word (and to the Spirit) as much as to the 
Father. But our Lord’s mode of speech leads us to 
think of Him, under the conditions under which He 
spoke, as not inwardly inspiring human souls, but 


dealing with them only in the spiritual relationship 
! Vill, 28, V.01Gy 20) Sil: AO payin UN , (6) eve pine 
Vl. 37, 39, 44-45; cf. x. 29, xvii. 6, 9, 24. 


2 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 87 


which belongs to humanity. I do not say more than 
‘leads us to think of Him, because the full meta- 
physical reality may not admit of expression in human 
words. But the tendency of what is said must be 
admitted. 

(4) Lastly, there is the argument from silence, coinci- 
dent with these indications. Our Lord exhibits insight 
and foresight of prophetic quality. He exhibits towards 
all facts of physical nature the receptiveness of a perfect 
sonship, so that, for example, the laws of natural waste 
and growth are pointed out by Him with consummate 
accuracy in the parable of the sower. But He never 
enlarges our stock of natural knowledge, physical or 
historical, out of the divine omniscience. 

The recognition of these phenomena of our Lord’s life 
leads us to the conclusion that up to the time of His 
death He lived and taught, He thought and was in- 
spired and was tempted, as true and proper man, under 
the limitations of consciousness which alone make possible 
a really human experience. Of this part of our heritage 
we must not allow ourselves to be robbed, by being 
‘wise above that which is written.’ 

At the same time it must be remembered that this 
idea of the meaning of the Incarnation is suggested by 
the Gospel narrative concurrently with the truth of our 
Lord’s divinity, which is here not proved but assumed. 
The facts which continually suggest that He is more 
than man, that He is in a unique sense Son of God}, 
and those which suggest that He is living and speaking 
under conditions of human limitation, are indissolubly 


1 Summarized in #. Z. i. and iii. 


88 Dissertations. 


intermingled with one another. One impression is given 
by the Gospels, taken together, of a real entrance of 
the eternal Son of God into our manhood and into the 
limited conditions of consciousness necessary to a really 
human state. This view alone can interpret and hold 
together all the phenomena, and this view does hold 
them all together and does enable us to read the 
Gospels without doing violence to any element in the 
many-sided but consistent picture which they present. 


§ 2. 
The language of St. Paul. 


This idea of the meaning of the Incarnation derived 
from the Gospels, whzle tt has no single certain passage 
of the New Testament against it, is on the other hand at 
least strongly reinforced by the language already quoted 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews!, and also by St. Paul’s 
language in two remarkable passages of his epistles. 
In a passage of the Epistle to the Philippians he is 
holding up our Lord in His incarnation as an example 
of humility, and this leads him to give, as we may say, 
a certain theory of it. He describes it as a self-empty- 
ing”. Christ Jesus pre-existed, he declares, in the form 

1 Eebr: y. 75's. 

? Phil. ii. 5-11 TovTo ppovetre ev byiy 6 Kal év XproTS "Inood, ds ev poppy 
Oeov imdpxwv, ovx apmaypov HynoaTo TO eiva ica OE, GAAA EauToy Exévwoey, 
poppny SovAov AaBwr, év duowwpati dvOpwrav yevdpevos* Kal oxnpate evpeOeis 


c 54 6 2 , c \ / < f / / , 5) 
ws avOpwros éTareivwoev EavTov yevopmevos tmHKOOS péexpt Oavdrov, POavatou 5é 
otavpov. See Lightfoot zz loc. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 89 


of God. The word ‘form’ transferred from physical 
shape to spiritual type, describes—as St. Paul uses it, 
alone or in composition, with uniform accuracy —the 
permanent characteristics of a thing. Jesus Christ then, 
in His pre-existent state, was living in the permanent 
characteristics of the life of God. In such a life it was 
His right to remain. It belonged to Him. But He 
regarded not His prerogatives, as a man regards a prize 
he must clutch at. For love of us He abjured the pre- 
rogatives of equality with God. By an act of deliberate 
self-abnegation, He so emptied Himself as to assume 
the permanent characteristics of the human or servile 
life: He took the form of a servant. Not only so, but 
He was made in outward appearance like other men 
and was found in fashion as a man, that is, in the 
transitory quality of our mortality. The ‘form,’ the 
‘likeness, the ‘fashion’ of manhood, He took them 
all. Thus, remaining in unchanged personality, He is 
exhibited as (to use Dr. Westcott’s words") ‘laying 
aside the mode of divine existence’ (rd efvau toa Oew) in 
order to assume the human. 

Again, St. Paul describes the Incarnation as a ‘ self- 
beggary*.” The metaphor suggests a man of wealth 


1 In the Speaker’s Commentary, on St. John i. 14. The question has been 
asked, Does St. Paul imply that Jesus Christ abandoned the pop@z) Oeov ? 
I think all we can certainly say is that He is conceived to have emptied 
Himself of the divine mode of existence (uopp7), so far as was involved in 
His really entering upon the human mode of existence (uopp7). St. Paul 
does not use his terms with the exactness of a professional logician or 
scholastic. On the subject, and on the passage generally, see Bruce, Zumzlza- 
tion of Christ (Clark, 1876) lect. 1. 

2 2 Cor.viii. 9 ywwonere yap THY Xap Tod Kuptou Huav "Incod [XpraTov], Te 
80 buas émrwyevoev mAOVaLOS Gy, iva bets TH Exelvov TIWXELG TAOUTHINTE. 


go Dissertations. 


who deliberately abandons the prerogatives of possession 
to enter upon the experience of poverty, not because he 
thinks it a better state, but in order to help others up 
through real fellowship with their experience to a life of 
weal. ‘Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he beggared 
himself, that ye through his poverty might become rich.’ 
This is how St. Paul interprets our Lord’s coming down 
from heaven, and it is manifest that it expresses some- 
thing very much more than the mere addition of a man- 
hood to His Godhead. In a certain aspect indeed the 
Incarnation is the folding round the Godhead of the veil 
of the humanity, to hide its glory, but it is much more 
than this. If as,a,Geasine te exercise: vat least ina 
certain sphere, and so far as human thought can attain, 
some natural prerogatives of the divine existence; it 
is a coming to exist for love of us under conditions of 
being not natural to Godhead. For our sakes the Son 
of God abandoned His own divine prerogatives in God 
in order to win and merit, as man, by gradual and pain- 
ful effort, a glory which, by right, might have been His 
all along, the glory which He had with the Father 
before the world was. And that glory in fact He 
received as the reward of His human obedience: because 
of the obedience of His mortal life God, says St. Paul, 
‘highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which 
is above every name—the divine name. So that ‘In 
him (i.e. in the exalted Christ) dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily,’ in him ‘ are all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge hidden?’ 


1 Phil. ii. 9; Col. ii. 3,9. These phrases are used of Christ in glory. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. gr 


§ 3. 


An absolute xévwcis not affirmed in the 
New Testament. 


The view here expressed leaves a great deal unex- 
plained, and specially the relation of the Incarnation to 
the eternal and cosmic functions of the Word. The 
Word or Son in the Incarnation comes forth from 
the Father, comes down from heaven. The Father, on 
His side, is represented as ‘sending’ Him and ‘ giving 
fim up.  lheresis no text, certain enough to be 
quoted—‘ the Son of Man which is in heaven’ being, as 
has been mentioned, highly uncertain on critical grounds 
—which directly suggests that the incarnate Person 
during the period of His humiliation was still none the 
less zz heaven, i.e. in the fulfilment of His divine 
functions. On the other hand the theology of St. John, 
St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews leads us to 
believe that the Word belongs to the eternal life of 
God, and is also the sustaining principle of all crea- 
tion —‘in whom all things consist, who ‘bears along all 
things by the utterance of his power?.’ In the first of 
these passages St. Paul is contemplating the Son of God 
as holding an eternal place in the life of God as His 
image or self-expression, and a fundamental and per- 
manent relation to all created things, not to men or to 

1 St. John iii. 16 é5wxey, Rom. viii. 32 mapédwxev, St. John xx. 20, 
1 St. John iv. 9 awéaraAxer. 


2 Col. 1.17 7a ravra év adte@ ovvéotyker, Hebr. i. 3 pépwy Ta Tavta TE 
pnyatt THs Suvdpews avTov. 


92 Dissertations. 


this world only, but also to all unseen intelligences and 
beings whatsoever. In Him they had their origin; to- 
ward Him they tend ; in Him they permanently subsist. 
‘He is the principle of cohesion in the universe. He 
impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which 
makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos!” St. Paul goes 
on to suggest how this fundamental relation of the Son to 
the universe as its creator, its immanent principle of 
life and order, and its goal or end, is reproduced in 
His relation to the new creation, the Church. But the 
language which he uses of the relation of the Son to 
nature is such as to make it almost impossible to imagine 
that St. Paul conceived it to be interrupted by the 
Incarnation. The Incarnation is an episode in it, or 
rather its consummation and completion. How much 
St. Paul reflected upon the relation of the ‘ self-emptying ’ 
of the Son which he postulates in other epistles to this 
permanent cosmic function which he here describes, we 
cannot say. But he must at least have been prepared to 
postulate the first with all reality, and still to maintain 
the permanence of the second. Again, in the passage 
just quoted from the prologue of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, the Son’s function of ‘bearing along all things 
by the utterance of his power’ appears to be conceived 
of as continuous and not affected by that purging of 
our sins and subsequent sitting down on the right hand 
of the divine majesty, for the realization of which the 
author of the epistle postulates His entrance into all 
sinless human experience and infirmity. This writer also 
must have believed the self-emptying in the one sphere 


Lightfoot 27 doc. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 93 


to have been compatible with the cosmic function in 
another sphere. Nor has the thought of the Church 
found the abandonment of the cosmic position even 
a conceivable hypothesis. Thus, if we are asked the 
question—Can the functions of the Son in the Godhead 
and in the universe have been suspended by the Incar- 
nation? we cannot but answer, with the theologians 
of the Church from Irenaeus to Dr. Westcott, that it 
is to us inconceivable’. Nor can we dissociate the 
fulfilment of these functions from the exercise of omni- 
science. We must suppose, then, that in some manner 
the humiliation and the self-limitation of the incarnate 
state was compatible with the continued exercise of 
divine and cosmic functions in another sphere. But 
although we cannot but suppose and believe this, we 
must remember that the language of the New Testament 
is much more full and clear on the fact of the human 
limitations than on the permanence of the cosmic func- 
tions; and that our capacities for speculation about God, 
beyond what is disclosed in experience and revelation, 
are exceedingly limited. If Scripture represents the 
divine intention, then we should conclude that it is the 
divine intention that we should meditate on the reality 
of the self-humiliation of the Son which is revealed to us 
and pressed upon our notice; and if we can but very 
dimly hold this together with the unchangeable exercise 
of His divine functions in the life of God and in the 
universe, we shail surely not be surprised: for beyond 
all question we ‘know in part,’ we see ‘as in a mirror, 
we understand ‘as in a riddle’ the mysteries of God. 


1 See below, pp. 98 ff. 


94 Dissertations. 


§ 4. 
Provitstonal conclusion. 


Our examination of the New Testament language— 
especially of the narrative of the Gospels and of the 
theology of St. Paul and St. John—would so far 
appear to justify a conclusion which may be stated in 
two ways. 

(1) The Incarnation of the Son of God was no 
mere addition of a manhood to His Godhead: it 
was no mere wrapping around the divine glory of 
a human nature to veil it and make it tolerable to 
mortal eyes. It was more than this. The Son of God, 
without ceasing to be God, the Son of the Father, and 
without ceasing to be conscious of His divine relation 
as Son to the Father, yet, in assuming human nature, so 
truly entered into it as really to grow and live as Son 
of Man under properly human conditions, that is to say 
also under properly human limitations. Thus, if we 
are to express this in human language, we are forced 
to assert that within the sphere and period of His 
incarnate and mortal life, He did, and as it would 
appear did habitually—doubtless by the voluntary 
action of His own self-limiting and _self-restraining 
love'—cease from the exercise of those divine functions 
and powers, including the divine omniscience, which 


1 St. jobu x. 18; 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 95 


would have been incompatible with a truly human 
experience. 

(2) Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate, was and 
is, at every moment and in every act, both God and 
man, personally God made man; He is as truly God 
at His birth or death as now in His glory, and as truly 
man now in His glory as formerly in His human birth 
and mortal life, but the relation of the Godhead and 
the manhood is not the same throughout. Now in His 
glory we must conceive that the manhood subsists 
under conditions of Godhead, ‘the glory of God’: but 
formerly during His mortal life and within its sphere, 
the Godhead was energizing under conditions and limi- 
tations of manhood. The Son of God really became 
and lived as Son of Man. 

This provisional conclusion may be further defined 
by contrasting it, broadly, with other well-known views, 
before we go on to examine it in the light of the 
historical development of theology. 

It is opposed, then, on the one side, to the view, 
which I must call the a przorz, dogmatical and unhistori- 
cal view that Christ's human mind was from the first 
moment of the Incarnation and continuously flooded 
with complete knowledge and with the glory of the 
beatific vision, so that He never could really grow in 
knowledge or be ignorant of anything, or be personally 
in any perplexity or doubt’. It is opposed, on the other 
hand, to the a friorz, humanitarian and also unhistorical 
view that the Son in becoming man ceased to be 
conscious of His own eternal sonship, and became, not 

1 On which see further II. § 8. 


96 Dissertations. 


merely a human, but a fallible and peccable teacher. 
This view is unhistorical equally with the other. That 
the consciousness and claim of Christ is represented in 
the Gospels as properly divine, the claim of the Son 
of God, does not admit of reasonable doubt: and again 
His words as a whole, with the claims they involve and 
the tone impressed upon them, will not allow us to think 
of Him as liable to sin or liable to mislead'. He never, 
as He is represented to us in the Gospels, fears sin or 
hints at His inadequacy to the tremendous mission 
which He bore. He challenges criticism. He speaks 
as the invincible emancipator of man, the deliverer who 
stands in no relation to sin but as the discerner, the 
conqueror, the judge of it in all its forms and to the end 
of time*. In the same way, whenever and whomsoever 
He teaches; it as, in ithe ‘tone which could- only be 
morally justifiable in the case of one who taught infal- 
libly ‘ the word of God.’ ‘ Heaven and earth,’ He said, 
‘shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away °.’ 
‘Lo,’ said the apostles, amazed at the calm authority 
of His tone, ‘now know we that thou knowest all 
things and needest not that any man should ask thee; 
by this we believe that thou camest forth from God*.’ 
Both these views then appear to be equally contra- 


1 See above, p. 80. 

* St. John xiv. 30-31 ‘The prince of the world cometh: and he hath 
nothing in me,’ sums up the whole impression left by the Gospels. The 
only passage which could be alleged to the contrary is the ‘Why callest 
thou me good ?’ (St. Mark x. 18). But this, interpreted as a repudiation of 
goodness, is too utterly out of keeping with our Lord’s general claims. It 
must be regarded as a question asked of the young man to test his motives 
and principles, see 2. Z. pp. 13, 198. 

jst. Matt. xxiv. 35. * St. John xvi. 30. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 97 


dicted by the evangelical narrative taken as it stands. 
The view which is truly in accordance with the narrative 
must lie in between these two extremes ; but even within 
the intermediate area we cannot, I think. be contented 
with a view which simply puts in juxtaposition, during 
our Lord’s earthly life, the divine and human conscious- 
nesses—which represents Him as acting and speaking now 
as God and now as man, and which attributes to Him 
simultaneously omniscience as God and limitation of 
knowledge as man. It is no doubt true that as God He 
possessed potentially at every moment the divine as well 
as the human consciousness and nature. But the self- 
sacrifice of the Incarnation appears to have lain in great 
measure, so far as human words can express it, in His 
refraining from the divine mode of consciousness within 
the sphere of His human life, that He might really 
enter into human experience. It is not enough, for 
example, to recognize that our Lord was ignorant of 
the divine secret of the day and hour of the end, in 
respect of His human nature, unless we recognize also 
that He was so truly living under human conditions as 
idimself to be ignorant. The Son Himself, as He 
reveals Himself to men in manhood, did not know. 


98 Dissertations. 


1B 


THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN OPINION, OUTSIDE THE 
CANON, “ON THE. SUBJECT OF OUR LORDS HUMAN 
CONSCIOUSNESS. 


§ 1. 
Preliminary. On the permanence in the [ncar- 
nation of the Godhead of Christ. 


I have mentioned above that all theologians of the 
Church from Irenaeus downwards affirm that Christ in 
becoming incarnate did not cease to be God or to 
exercise the cosmic functions of the Word. His human 
birth, it is frequently expressed, was no diminution or 
destruction of what He was before. ‘Hoc enim quod 
ex Carne atque in carne venit, ortus eius fuit; nen 
imminutio; et natus tantum est non demutatus; quia 
licet in forma Dei manens formam servi assumpserit, 
infirmitas tamen habitus humani non infirmavit naturam 
Dei.’ This passage from Cassian (de Jucarn. vi. 19) may 
stand as an example of innumerable others from all periods 
of Christian theology. The Christian consciousness has, 
as a fact, from its beginning down to the Reformation, 
and for the most part since then, found it an inconceivable 
supposition that the cosmic functions of the Son and 
His divine functions—such as His share in the eternal 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 99 


procession of the Holy Ghost—should be interrupted 
by the Incarnation. But it is important to notice that, 
eranted this, there is still room for difference in statements 
of the truth, according as the divine and cosmic functions 
(and accompanying consciousness) of the Son are or are 
not brought into juxtaposition with the human function 
(and consciousness) so as practically to overwhelm them. 
The following quotations will illustrate the difference 
and also the general theological assumption. 


IRENAEUS, con. Haer. v. 18. 3 ‘Mundi enim factor 
were Veroum Der est > hic autem est Dominus noster 
qui in novissimis temporibus homo factus est, in hoc 
mundo exsistens et secundum invisibilitatem continet 
[-ens?] quae facta sunt omnia et in universa conditione 
infixus! quoniam Verbum Dei gubernans et disponens 
omnia; et propter hoc in sua visibiliter ? venit et caro 
factum est et pependit super lignum, uti universa in 
semetipsum recapituletur....Ipse est enim qui uni- 
versorum potestatem habet a Patre quoniam Verbum 
Dei et homo verus, invisibilibus quidem participans 
rationabiliter et sensuabiliter? legem statuens universa 
quaeque in suo perseverare ordine ; super visibilia autem 
et humana regnans manifeste.’ 


Here Irenaeus certainly asserts that the Incarnation 
did not interrupt the cosmic activity of the Word. ‘In 
the last times, he informs us, ‘He was made man, while 
all the same existing in the world and invisibly sustaining 
all creation. It was because of the universal cosmic 


1 i.e. implanted in the whole creation. 

2 The sense requires us to read vészbelzter, not znviszbzliter, here. 

8’ This must represent vonT@s or voepws, and means ‘in a manner 
perceptible to the reason’ (not the senses), The translator of Irenaeus 
translates vows by sezzsus. 


H 2 


100 Dissertations. 


government entrusted to Him that He rendered Himself 
visible and was made flesh and hung upon the cross, 
in order to accomplish a work of recovery, which was 
necessary to recapitulate all things into Himself’ But 
when previously Irenaeus had spoken of the human 
consciousness of Christ, he markedly abstained (as will 
appear shortly, when the passages are quoted) from 
bringing this universal activity of the Word into juxta- 
position with His human life and experience. 

ORIGEN, speaking of the Incarnation of the Son (de 
Princip. iv. 30, Rufinus’ translation) writes : 

‘In quo non ita sentiendum est quod omnis divinitatis 
eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa 
est, ita ut omne Verbum Dei et sapientia eius ac sub- 
stantialis veritas ac vita vel a Patre divulsa sit vel 
intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem, nec 
usquam praeterea putetur operata.’ 

On the other hand, like Irenaeus, though perhaps with 
more of the hesitation begotten of his philosophy, he 
inclines (as will appear) to give a real meaning to the 
divine self-emptying in the assumption of manhood. 

EUSEBIUS, Dem. Evang. vii. 1 tv’ otv kat 61a copatwv 
aicOicews THs TOV VOnTOY Kal Gowpatay evvolas éemiAaBdpeOa, 
Tov jpiv ovyyern kal yvadpisov |Adyov] atrds 6 Beds Adyos 
aveAduBave, kal mavta ye bv avtod Ta cwTHpLa Tols avTHKdOLS 
Kal auTontats Tov evO€wy attod Adywyv TE Kal épywv Tpo- 
eBahdeTo. Kat TadT expatre Tals ToD odpaTos avayKats dpolws 
Hplv ovdayGs KkaTadecpovpevos ovdE TL XELpoV 1) JElCov avTos 
EavTov Tis OedtyTos Dropevav, ovd ovtTws ota avOpdzov Wry?) 
TY OOMATL TESOVPLEVOS WS pI evepyety OVvVaTOaL Ta Geta, pr OE 
TavTaxy) Tapetvat Oeod Adyov dvta Kal Ta TavTAa TANHpodvTA 
kal Ova mavTwY HKovta’ aAN olde pUTOY 7 POopav 7) placpa 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 101 


a e nT / \ 3 fA ng 5 , XA \ 
e€ as avetknhe capkds emevynveypévos, br. 51) doepatos dv thy 
/ Ny Ae @ lal , 5 I/ / \ 
vow Kal avdos kat acapkos ota Oeod AOyos, EvOEw SvVdper Kal 
a y Tad ts \ na 
Adyots Hutv appitos Tacav bayer THY olKovoplav, TGV oiKkelov 
v4 >) ] > >) , n b) / b) n , 
MeTadtoovs, GAN ovK avTeTTayouevos TOV GdAOTpiwv. ovKotY Ti 
a rf) Ss \ ” > / 5] \ \ , hv c 
poBetcOat xp THyv EvoapKoy oikovoptay, evel py euodvveTo 6 
Saale \ S19 2 nN Ca sf 5) M4 \ \ 
apodvrTos, 7) O€ Ex THS TapKds O aplavtos eptatveTo, pH be 
ocvvepOeipeto TH TOV ceparos olKkela hicet 6 atabrs Tod VEeod 
peto TH pa wa 
, ¢€ f / / a an 
Acyos, évwel py S€ HAlov wadorev dv TL axTives vEeKpOv Kal 


, 
TAVTOLWY THOUATOV ETAPOMEVAL § 


The sense of this passage may be given briefly thus: 


‘The Word was incarnate in order to present spiritual 
and rational realities to us men under forms of sense. 
But in doing this His own divine nature was subjected 
to no change: He was not fettered to the necessities 
of the body which He assumed. He was not involved, 
like a man’s soul, in his body, so as not to be able to 
operate divinely in the whole universe. He suffered no 
defilement in his immaterial and impassible essence, 
nor contracted any attributes alien to it while He was 
imparting His own, any more than the sun contracts the 
defilements of the objects which its light illuminates.’ 


This passage is typical of Eusebius’ thought. We may 
compare it with another, Dem. Evang. iv. 13 (Pair. Graec. 
xxii. pp. 284 ff.). Here he is again emphasizing that 
while Christ was conversing among men He was at the 
same time filling all things and subsisting in the Father 
(p. 288 a). He describes Him as ‘imparting what is 
His own to the manhood, but not receiving its attributes 
in exchange’ (ra peév €& adtod peradidods TG dvOpdr7, Ta 
d€ €k Tod Ovntod pH avtthauBavev); He calls the man- 
hood an ‘instrument which he held out before Him’ 
(0. dpydvov ob zpotBeBAnro avOpwzivov), and compares His 


102 Drssertations. 


relation to it to that of a musician to his lyre (285 c) 
who is not himself affected by the blows which strike the 
strings (288b). The metaphor of the sun again appears: 
the nature of the Word is no more involved in the 
passions of the body which He assumed, than the sun's 
rays are defiled by the objects which they touch (288 c). 

Such a line of thought is typical not of Eusebius only 
but of many of the more philosophical fathers. Current 
philosophy was, perhaps, overmuch occupied with the 
impassibility of God. At any rate to guard the concep- 
tion of the divine impassibility, philosophical Christians 
—and Eusebius among them—go dangerously far in 
minimizing the meaning of the Incarnation. It is over- 
much assimilated to the immanence of the divine reason 
in the universe. The above metaphor of the sun (not 
used by Eusebius alone!) is surely very inadequate to 
express the relation of the Word to His own manhood. In 
fact Eusebius is here speaking much more the language 
of current philosophy than of the New Testament writers. 
His first thought is of the impassibility of the Word and 
His cosmic function. In the New Testament writers, on 
the other hand—for St. Paul and St. John and the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews—the Son of 
God made man, the Word made flesh, is the primary 
thought. He being what He was, really did humble 


* See reffs. in Newman, 7racts Theol. and Eccl. p. 314. Cf. a fragment 
of a letter ad Caesarium attributed to St. Chrysostom (Ofera, ed. Migne, 
tom. xiii. p. 497) where the divine Son is said to suffer in the passion no 
more than the sun suffers when a tree is cut down which it is completely 
penetrating with its rays. St. John Damasc. de /7d. Orth. iii. 26 repeats 


the metaphor and argument, which is also found in Alcuin, de id. s. Trin. 
iii, 16, 


Ihe Consciousness of our Lord. 103 


Himself to conditions of human suffering and trial and 
death, for us men and for our salvation. So preoccu- 
pied are they with the thought that they do not for the 
time seem to ask the question—what is the relation of this 
humiliation to those cosmic functions of the Word, which, 
antecedently and subsequently to the humiliation, they 
have full in view? I should contend then that in this 
passage Eusebius is making primary metaphysical con- 
siderations which should be kept strictly secondary, and 
allowing a philosophical deduction to obscure the full 
meaning of the Gospel revelation. 


ATHANASIUS, de Incarnatione, 17. 4,5 ob 8) ToLvodtos 
nv 6 TOO Oeod Adyos ev TO GVOPSTwH* od yap cuVEdEdETO 
TO TOpatl, GAG padAov avTos expate TodTO, date Kal ev 
ToUT® iv Kal év Tois Taow érvyxave kal ew Tv dvTaDV 
Hv Kal ev pdve TO TaTpl aveTaveTo’ Kal TO Oavyactdy TodTo 
HV, OTL Kal os GvOpwmos emoAtTEveTO kal ws Adyos Ta TATA 
eCwoydver Kal ws vids TO TaTpl ovr. 

Here Athanasius, almost repeating the words of 
Eusebius in the passage just referred to, simply asserts 
that the Incarnation did not limit the Word in Himself. 
He was still in the universe and in the bosom of the 
Father. With this position, as a necessary philosophical 
conclusion, there is—it seems to me—no fault to be 
found so long as the Gospel revelation of the meaning 
of the Incarnation is kept in the foreground. But 
Athanasius like Eusebius goes on— 

60ev ovde THs TapOEevov TLKTOVONS ETAaTXEV AUTOS, OVOE ev 
odpate Ov €wodvveTo’ GAG paAXAov Kal TO cGpa Hyiacev. ovde 
yap év Tols Tac Oy Tov TavTwy peTadapBaver, dAAa TayTA 
padAov vm avtod Cwoyoveitrar Kat TpEepeTat. 


104 Dissertations. 


Then follows the metaphor of the sun, employed 
exactly as by Eusebius. Here again then I cannot 
but think that the philosophical interest overpowers the 
evangelical truth: as again in c.41, where, in order to make 
Christian truth easy for ‘the Greeks,’ the Incarnation is 
assimilated to the émiBao1s of the Word upon nature. 
On the other hand Athanasius later in his life strongly 
insisted on the Word having really identified Himself 
with the humanity which He assumed: see Ep. ad 
Epictetum, as referred to on p. 124. 


PROCLUS of Cyzicus, Orat. i. 9 (P. G. Ixv. p. 690 c) 
6 avTos Gp ev Tols KOATOLS TOD TaTpds Kal ev yaoTpl TapOEevov" 
6 avtos év ayKdAats pntpos Kal emt TTEpvywy avéwwv’ 6 adros 
dvw t70 ayyéAwy Tpocekvuveito Kal KaT@ TEAGVaLs TUVaVEKAL- 
veto’ Ta CEepadlm ov TpoceBreTTE Kal Il.Adtos npéta... wde 


a e 5) 


mAdvos EgvuKOpavTEito Kal €xel Aytos ed0€oAoye?lTo. 


* He, the same, was in His Father’s bosom and in the 
womb of the Virgin; in His mother’s arms and on the 
wings of the winds ; He was being worshipped by the 
angels in heaven and He was supping with publicans on 
earth ; whom the Seraphim dare not gaze at, Pilate was 
questioning .. . Here He was being maligned as a cheat, 
while there He was being glorified as the Holy One.’ 


This is a passage from a memorable and splendid 
sermon? preached in reply to Nestorius’ follower Anas- 
tasius in the Cathedral of St. Sophia at Constantinople. 
Proclus is emphasizing that the incarnate person is no 
other than the eternal Son, and he puts into strong 
rhetorical juxtaposition the humiliating sufferings of the 
manhood and the glories of the Godhead, as belonging 


1 See Bright’s arly Church History, p. 313. Cf. Hilary, de Trin. x. 54. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 105 


simultaneously to the same person. I would only 
contend that there is nothing in the New Testament 
to justify this sort of language, and that it gives an 
unnatural meaning—if meaning at all—to such a fact 
as our Lord’s cry of desolation upon the cross, if 
within the sphere where that cry was uttered, He was 
personally living in the exercise of the beatific vision, 
if that vision was (so to speak) side by side with the 
experience upon the cross. When, as in this case, the 
abstract movement of human thought is necessarily 
baffled by the conditions of the subject, it is specially 
necessary to keep close to ¢he facts, in this case the 
revealed facts, and to let the language follow closely 
upon them. 

I would conclude then, on this preliminary matter, 
that it is necessary, if we would be true to the New 
Testament in thinking or writing of the incarnate Christ, 
to put into the foreground and to emphasize the human 
state as it is described in the Gospels. The truth of the 
New Testament is impaired or destroyed if the divine 
state is put into immediate juxtaposition with this. 
Only as there is real reason to believe that the apostolic 
writers did contemplate the continuance of the cosmic 
functions of the Word, and as the thought of the Church 
has found it impossible to conceive the opposite, it is 
right to explain that the real xévwovs within the sphere 
of the Incarnation must be held compatible with the 
exercise of divine functions in another sphere. On the 
question whether this is conceivable by us, more will 
need to be said later on. 


106 Dissertations. 


§ 2. 
Early tradition and speculation on the special 
subject of the human consciousness of Christ. 


The ‘churches’ were started on their career with 
a ‘tradition’ of faith which it was their office to guard. 
This tradition was conceived to embody the teaching of 
the apostolic founders on the matters which constituted 
‘the faith once for all committed to the saints.’ This 
idea of tradition, to which the New Testament bears 
frequent testimony, has been mentioned before !. All that 
we now have to inquire is whether in the earliest churches 
this tradition was conceived to contain any information 
on the subject of our Lord’s human consciousness, or 
whether the subsequent development of Christian thought 
upon the subject was due simply to the influence of 
certain ‘texts’ in the apostolic writings and to con- 
clusions drawn from the general idea of the Incarnation. 

The divinity of Christ—that He was the Son of God 
made man—is assumed by the subapostolic representa- 
tives of the churches of Rome and Antioch, Clement and 
Ignatius*. . It is assumed, not as matter of controversy, 


1 See above, p. 41. 

* Clement, ad Cor. 2 Tad naOjpara avroi, i.e. Tod Oeot (= Christ); Ignatius, 
Eph. i &y aipate cod, Rom. 6 Tod maGovs Tod Oeov. See further Lightfoot’s 
notes on Clem. ad Cor. 2. I ought to add that since Lightfoot decided for 
ov not Xpiorod as the true reading in this place, the ancient Latin version 
published by D. Germanus Morin in Anecdota Maredsolana has increased the 
evidence on the other side. If Xpiorod is to be used, however, there still 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 107 


but as truth which can be alluded to, i.e. as matter 
of traditional acceptance common to the churches of 
Rome and Antioch with those churches—of Greece and 
Asia—to which Clement and Ignatius were writing?. 
Considering what the teaching of St. Paul and St. John on 
the subject of the Incarnation had been, this could hardly 
have been otherwise. When we first get formulated 
summaries of ‘the tradition,’ i.e. creeds, longer or shorter, 
this principle is the centre of the Christian theology. 
Thus the creed of Irenaeus, often repeated in sub- 
stance, is ‘in one God Almighty, from whom are all 
things; and in one Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord, 
through whom are all things, and in His dispensa- 
tions, by which the Son of God became man; and in 
the spirit of God" And the ‘rule of faith” as stated 


remains evidence of the faith of Clement and his church: (1) In the fact 
that he quotes and depends upon the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(Heb. i. 5) about the person of Christ, c. 36. (2) In his reference to Christ 
as of Jacob, according to the flesh, 76 kata capka, c. 32. (3) In doxologies 
addressed apparently to Christ, cc. 20, 50. (4) In the Trinitarian phrase, 
(7 6 Oeds Kal (7p 6 KUpLos Incots Xpiotds Kal TO TvEdpAa TO GyLov H Te TiaTLs Kal 
% €Amis Tav éxdAExTOY, Cc. 58, cf.c. 46. 

It should be added that the Shepherd of Hermas contains in the clearest 
form the principle of the Incarnation (not so clearly the doctrine of the 
Trinity) as accepted Christian truth. The Son of God, begotten before all 
creation as the counsellor of His Father in creation, was in the last days 
manifested for the salvation of man (Sz. ix. 12). 

It is noticeable that Ignatius is contending not for the Godhead of Christ, 
but for His true humanity. The note of contention for the divinity of 
Christ appears first in the so-called second Epistle of Clement, probably 
a homily of the Corinthian Church belonging to the first half of the second 
century, but later than Ignatius. Here the preacher, having no doubt the 
Ebionites in his mind, begins ‘ Brethren, we must think of Jesus Christ as 
of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead: and we must not have mean 
views of our salvation; for if we think meanly of Him we expect also 
to receive but a mean reward.’ 

1 Tren. con. Haer. iv. 33. 7 «is va Gedy mavtoKparopa, ef ov Ta TavTa, TiTLS 


108 Dissertations. 


by Origen is, so far as it bears on the Incarnation, as 
follows!: 


‘The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching 
of the apostles are as follows. First, that there is 
one God... Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself who 
came [into the world] was born of the Father before all 
creatures ; that after He had been the minister of the 
Father in the creation of all things—for by Him were 
all things made—in the last times, emptying Himself 
[of His glory] He became man and was incarnate, 
although God, and while made man remained the God 
which He was; that He assumed a body like to our 
own, differing in this respect only that it was born of 
a viroin and of the Holy Spirit. ... 


But this common doctrine of the Incarnation may 
bring with it one of several different answers to the 
question of our Lord’s consciousness in His mortal life. 
On this latter subject there was no tradition, and the 
early Church was left, as we are, to the examination of 
‘texts’ and the formation of opinions. This appears 
from the three carliest statements on the subject. 

IRENAEUS, assuming the principle of the Incarna- 
tion, emphasizes the reality of our Lord’s entrance into 


6AvKAnpos* Kal eis TOv vidv Tod Bed "Incody Xpioréy, Tov KUpov Huav, 5.’ ov 
Ta mdavta, Kal Tas oikovopias avTov, & dv avOpwmos éyéveto 6 vids Tov 
Oeov, meccpovy BeBaia’ Kal eis TO TvEDLA TOU Beov. 

? Origen, de Princ. pref. 4 ‘Species vero eorum quae per praedicationem 
apostolicam manifeste traduntur istae sunt. Primo quod unus Deus est... 
Tum deinde quia Iesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem creaturam 
natus ex Patre est. Quicum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, fer 
tpsum enim omnia facta sunt, novissimis temporibus se ipsum exinaniens, 
homo factus, incarnatus est cum Deus esset et homo factus mansit quod 
erat Deus. Corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile, eo solo differens quod 
natum ex virgine et Spiritu sancto est.’ 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 109 


human experience. That he should have done this is 
no more than what we might expect from the greatest 
of the opponents of Gnosticism. ‘ Gnosticism’ is a vague 
term, but a general characteristic of the phases of 
speculation and belief, which are grouped under the 
name, is a radical disbelief in the compatibility of the 
spiritual and the material, of God and nature. and, there- 
fore, a radical antagonism to the root-principle of the 
Incarnation. Thus opposition to Gnosticism leads the 
Church teachers to a healthy emphasis, as on other 
things, so also on the reality of the human ‘flesh’ of 
Jesus. God really was made man. The Supreme did 
really enter into nature and manhood. Tertullian chiefly 
emphasizes this in regard to physical processes and 
sufferings and in regard to the actual human birth and 
human sufferings of the Son of God. But Irenaeus 
emphasizes it more broadly. He claims that God, the 
Son of God, did truly enter into all that makes up the 
nature of man in body, mind and soul. Not only, then, 
did He reveal God to man, but He ‘exhibited man to 
God!’ He really went through human struggles and 
won a human victory. ‘ He struggled and overcame: 
He was man fighting for his fathers, and by His 
obedience paying the debt of their disobedience: for He 
bound the strong (adversary) and loosed the weak 
(captives) and gave deliverance to His creatures, destroy- 
ing sin®’ And in order to fight the human fight fully, 

1 iv, 20. 7 Deo autem exhibens hominem.’ This activity of the Word is 
not, however, confined to the Incarnation by Irenaeus. 

? iii, 18. 6, 7 ‘Luctatus est enim et vicit; erat enim homo pro patribus 


certans et per obedientiam inobedientiam persolvens ; alligavit enim fortem 
et solvit infirmos et salutem donavit plasmati suo, destruens peccatum. .. . 


IIo Dissertations. 


‘He passed through every age, from infancy to man- 
hood, restoring to each communion with God.’ And in 
order that His human struggle may be believed to have 
been real, St. Irenaeus postulates a guzescence of the 
divine Word ‘while He was tempted and dishonoured, 
and crucified and slain, as on the other hand its ‘co- 
operation with the man (or manhood) in His victory 
and endurance and goodness, and resurrection and 
ascension!.’? Irenaeus thus emphasizes the reality of 


Quapropter et per omnem venit aetatem, omnibus restituens eam, quae est 
ad Deum communionem.’ Cf. also ii. 22. 4, an interesting passage, where 
great stress is laid on our Lord becng truly what He seemed, and not violating 
the law of human life: ‘ Triginta quidem annorum exsistens quum veniret ad 
baptismum, deinde magistri aetatem perfectam habens, venit Hierusalem, 
ita ut ab omnibus iuste audiret magister: non enim aliud videbatur et aliud 
erat, sicut inquiunt qui putativum introducunt; sed quod erat hoc et 
videbatur. Magister ergo exsistens, magistri quoque habebat aetatem, non 
reprobans nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens legem in se humani 
generis, sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam, quae ad ipsum erat, 
similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare ; omnes, inquam, 
qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et iuvenes 
et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, 
sanctificans infantes; in parvulis parvus, sanctificans hance ipsam habentes 
aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et iustitiae et subiectionis ; 
in iuvenibus iuvenis, exemplum iuvenibus fiens et sanctificans Domino. 
Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum 
secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum aetatem, sanctificans 
simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem 
pervenit, ut sit przmogenttus ex mortuts, tpse primatum tenens in omnibus, 
princeps vitae, prior omnium et praecedens omnes.’ 

1 iii. 19. 3 Womep yap jv avOpwros, iva TwetpacOy, ovTws Kal Adyos, iva 
dofacdn HavxafovTos pev TOU Adyou év TO meipacecOa ... Kal cTavpovobar 
kal amoOvnoKew’ ovyyiwopevov 5 Tw avOpwrw ev TO wiKav Kal UTopevey 
Kal xpnoTevecOa xal dvicotacba Kal dvarauBavec@a. Irenaeus’ expression 
here admits of criticism. By the divine Word he must be understood to 
mean the Jowers of the divinity, if this passage is to be brought into agree- 
ment with his general doctrine. And his ascription of the elements of 
weakness only to the manhood, the element of victory to the Godhead, is not, 
as we shall see, justifiable from Scripture. But these defects of statement do 
not affect our present purpose. It ought of course to be remembered that 


The Consciousness of our Lord. III 


our Lord’s human experiences. And, in accordance 
with this, the reality of our Lord’s human ignorance. 
Then he rebukes the would-be omniscience of the 
Gnostics : 


‘Unreasonably puffed up, you audaciously declare that 
you know the unutterable mysteries of God; unreason- 
ably—seeing that even the Lord, the very Son of God, 
allowed that the Father alone knew the actual day and 
hour of judgement, saying plainly of that day and hour 
knoweth no man, neither the Son, except the Father 
only. If therefore the Son did not blush to refer to the 
Father the knowledge of that day, but said what is true; 
neither ‘let us blush, to reserve to God those points in 
inquiries which are too high for us. For no one is above 
his master.... For if any one ask the reason why the 
Father, though in all things holding communion with 
the Son, was declared by the Lord alone to know the 
day and hour; he could not at present find one more 
suitable, or proper, or less perilous than this (for our 
Lord is the only true master)—that we may learn 
through Him, that the Father is over all. For Zhe 
Father, He says, ts greater than J. And that even in 
respect of knowledge the Father is put over [the Son] is 
announced to us by our Lord, in order that we too, so 
long as we belong to the fashion of this world, may leave 


a good deal of confusion of language (and thought) is due to the use of 
6 dv@pwros, and still more of homo, for the manhood. Sometimes homo 
is used where what is clearly meant is #o¢ ‘man’ but ‘manhocd,’ e.g. in 
Hilary, de 77in. ix. 7 homo noster = our manhood. But the use of the 
concrete term to express the abstract coincides with a frequent confusion of 
thought between the ideas of ‘man’ and ‘manhood.’ When opposition to 
Nestorianism led to clear definition the confusion of thought is over, though 
even then the use of Aomo for manhood does not cease. Thus e.g. the contra 
Eutychen et Nestorium, assigned to Boetius, a treatise devoted to defining 
exactly the distinct meanings of ‘ person’ and ‘nature’ in the Incarnation, 
still uses the phrase (c. 7) vest2tus homine as=‘ clothed with the manhood, 


112 Dissertations. 


to God perfect knowledge and such investigations [as 
the Gnostics were presuming to undertake] 1’ 


It might appear as if St. Irenaeus attributed this 
ignorance to the Son simply as Son; but the phrase, ‘so 
long as we belong to the fashion of this world,’ and 
a previous expression? ‘ while we are still in this world,’ 
show that he was thinking of human ignorance generally, 
and therefore of our Lord’s ignorance as belonging simply 
to that mortal state which He assumed in assuming 
humanity. To the fersoz of the Son incarnate then, as 
He was among men, Irenaeus certainly attributes limita- 


tion of knowledge?®. 

1 ii, 28. 6-8 ‘Irrationabiliter autem inflati, audaciter inenarrabilia Dei 
mysteria scire vos dicitis; quandoquidem et Dominus, ipse Filius Dei, 
ipsum iudicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem manifeste dicens: 
de die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Filius, nist Pater solus. Si autem 
scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem, sed dixit quod 
verum est,neque nos erubescamus quae sunt in quaestionibus maiora secundum 
nos reservare Deo ; zemoenim super magistrum est.... Etenim si quis exquirat 
causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam 
et diem a Domino manifestatus est ; neque aptabilem magis neque decenti- 
orem nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in praesenti (quoniam 
enim solus verax magister est Dominus), ut discamus per ipsum super omnia 
esse Patrem. Ltenim Pater, ait, mator me est. Et secundum agnitionem 
itaque praepositus esse Pater annuntiatus est a Domino nostro ad hoc, ut et 
nos, in quantum in figura huius mundi sumus, perfectam scientiam et tales 
quaestiones concedamus Deo.’ 

* See ii. 28. 7 ‘nos adhuc in terra conversantes.’ 

5 Inthe same chapter in which he speaks of this ignorance of the Son, 
he ascribes to Him, in His eternal being, the knowledge of the meaning of 
the divine generation, unknown to the highest created existences (ii. 28. 6), 
and to the Son, as exalted Christ (apparently), the knowledge of the 
mysteries of sin and of the fall (ii. 28. 7). The context generally, and 
Irenaeus’ theology as a whole, lead us to conclude with Bull (Defence of the 
Nicene Creed, in Library of Anglo-Catholic Theol. i. 176), though not exactly 
for his reasons, and with Dorner (Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Clark’s 
Library, i. p. 309) that Irenaeus ascribes true limitations of knowledge to 
the incarnate Son, in His mortal life. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 113 


Meanwhile, Irenaeus’ contemporary at Alexandria, 
CLEMENT, was apparently asserting that the incarnate 
Christ was omniscient because He was God. 


‘While the Lord was actually being baptized, a voice 
sounded upon Him from heaven in witness to the beloved, 
Thou art my beloved Son; to-day have I begotten thee’. 
Let us inquire of these wise men [the Gnostics]: Is 
Christ begotten again to-day |in baptism] already perfect 
or—what would be most strange—is He deficient? If 
the latter, He must acquire information. But, as He is 
God, it is not likely He would acquire any information 
whatever. For no one could be greater than the Word or 
teacher of the only teacher. Will they, then, unwillingly 
confess that the Word, begotten as He was of the 
Father, perfect of the perfect, was begotten again |in 
baptism ] according to the forecast of revelation perfectly? 
And if He was perfect, why was the perfect one baptized? 
He needed, they say, to fulfil the profession which 
belonged to man. Quite true. I say the same. Does 
He then become perfect in the act of His being baptized 
by John? It is plain that this is so. Did He then 
learn nothing from him? Nothing. But He is perfected 
by the font alone and sanctified by the descent of the 
Sprite) Sout is. *, 

1 St. Mark i. 11, assimilated to Ps. ii. 7. 

2 Clem. Paedagog. i. 6. 25 (Dindorf) avrixa yoty Bamrifopévw TO kupip 
an’ ovpavav énnxnoev pwvi) paptus iyarnpévou: vids pov ef ov ayaTntés, éya 
onpepoy yeyevynkd oe. TvOwpcOa ovv TY copay’ onpepov avayevynbels 6 
Xprotos Hin TéAELds EoTw 7) UmEp dromwTaTov éAAUTTS ; Ei 5E TOUTO, Mpoopabety 
ti auT@ Sei. GAAA mpocpabety pev adTov eikds ovde Ev Ody GyTAa. ov yap 
peiCwy Tis ein av Tod Adyou, OVSE pry HidaocKadros TOU povov didacKdAov. pH Te 
ovv dpodroynaovow dkovtes Tov AdYoV TéELoV eK TErEioV PUYTA TOD TaTpds 
KAT TIV OiKOVOMLKIY TpodlaTUTwoW dvayevynOnVaL TEAEiWs ; Kal Ei TEAELOS TY, 
ri éBanrileto & TéAELos ; Ede, Paci, TAnpHoa TO éemayyeApa TO avOpwmvov. 
nayKkahos. nul yap* Gua Toivuy T@ Banrifec@a aitov ind “Iwdvvov yiverat 
Térevos; SHAov Stu ovdéev otv pds ad’Tod mpocepabev ; ov yap’ TEAELoUTAL 5e 
T® AovTp@ pov kal Tod mvevpatos TH Kaddiw ayidceTar ovTas EXEL. 


I 


114 Dissertations. 


The passage is not, perhaps, quite clear in its meaning; 
but Clement appears to attribute to our Lord both 
divine omniscience, which cannot learn from outside, 
as well as a perfect (human) enlightenment acquired in 
His baptism, the like of which he attributes, as against 
the Gnostics, to all baptized Christians. He appears 
then to think of cur Lord on earth as exercising both 
the divine omniscience of the Godhead and the perfect 
enlightenment of the manhood. But we should hardly 
expect from Clement, who went as far on the road of 
Docetism as to deny the existence in our Lord of any, 
even the most innocent, human emotions or appetites’, 
a very full realization of his real humanity. 

ORIGEN, who succeeded Clement in the Catechetical 
School of Alexandria, gives us more to dwell upon. So 
far as tradition goes, what it gave to Origen was (as we 
have seen) the principle that the Son of God divesting 
Himself, but none the less remaining God, became truly 
and really man by a human birth. We should expect 
Origen to fill up this outline by scrupulous attention to 
the letter of Holy Scripture. It cannot ‘be too often 
emphasized that Origen’s errors—so far as his opinions 
are certainly errors—were mainly due to an _ over- 
scrupulous literalness in the interpretation of Holy 
Scripture, that for instance his doctrine that the Son was 
not the absolute Goodness, as He was the absolute 
Wisdom, was due to his interpretation, more literal than 
true, of the text ‘There is none good but one, that is 


1 He was drafamAd@s dnaéns. He neither experienced the appetite of 
hunger, nor the emotions of joy and grief (Strom.vi.g. 71). In Strom. iii. 7.59 
Valentinus is quoted, and apparently with approval, as denying in our Lord 
the natural physical process of digestion. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 115 


God. We turn then with interest to Origen’s com- 
mentary on such a critical passage as St. Matt. xxiv. 36, 
which unfortunately remains to us only in an old and 
very bad Latin version!: De die autem illa et hora 
nemo scit, neque angeli caelorum, neque Filius, nist Pater 
solus. After noticing that this text serves to rebuke 
those who pretend to know too much about the last 
things, Origen remarks that the Saviour appears, accord- 
ing to this passage, to join Himself to those who do not 
know the day and hour. How is this consistent with 
His perfect knowledge of the Father (St: Matis xa. 27)? 
How did it come about that the Father concealed this 
from Him ? He proceeds to give two main interpretations, 
which we can more or less discern through the dimness 
of the bad Latin translation. 

(a) Some will have the courage to attribute this to 
the proper human development ascribed to our Lord by 
St. Luke (ii. 52). According to this interpretation He 
too, the man Christ Jesus, must wait His time for perfect 
knowledge*. Therefore now, ‘before He had fulfilled 
His dispensation, it was no wonder if He was ignorant 
of this one point alone. After the resurrection, when God 
highly exalted Him and bestowed upon Him the name 
which is above every name, He uses different language: 
‘It is not for you to know the times and the seasons.’ 
For by this time He knew all that the Father knew. 


? Huet, Ovégenzana, lib. iii. cap. 2. qu. 3. § 12 ascribes this translation, 
not without reason, to a companion of Cassiodorus. 

® “Homo qui secundum Salvatorem intelligitur proficiens,’ &c. = (I suppose) 
‘the man who (or the manhood which) in the case of the Saviour.’ Cf. his 


‘secundum historias’ (in Zo. xv. 5 of the same commentary) which =‘ in 
the case of the O. T. stories.’ 


Tr 2 


116 Dissertations. 


Origen however further suggests that by the words which 
follow—‘ which the Father has put in His own power ’— 
it is implied that the Father Himself, waiting upon the 
outcome of human conduct, has not fixed the day of the 
end, but keeps it open}. 

(8) He then gives another interpretation, which he 


1 in Matth. Comment. Series 55 (Lommatzsch iv. p. 329) ‘Et se ipsum 
Salvator, secundum hunc locum, coniungit ignorantibus diem illam et 
horam. Et rationabiliter est quaerendum quomodo qui confidit se 
cognoscere Patrem, dicens Nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius, et cuz voluerit 
Filius revelare, Patrem quidem novit, diem autem et horam consumma- 
tionis non novit? et quare hoc abscondit Pater a Filio? Omnino enim 
ratio esse debet, quod etiam a Salvatore tempus consummationis abscon- 
ditum sit, et ignoret de eo. Audebit autem aliquis dicere, quoniam homo 
qui secundum Salvatorem intelligitur proficiens sapientia et aetate et gratia 
coram Deo et hominibus, qui proficiens proficiebat quidem super omnes 
- scientia et sapientia, non tamen ut veniret iam quod erat perfectum, prius- 
quam propriam dispensationem impleret. Nihil ergo mirum est, si hoc 
solum nescivit ex omnibus, id est, diem consummationis et horam. Forsitan 
autem et quod ait nescire se diem consummationis et horam, ante dispensatio- 
nem suam dixit, quia nemo scit, neque angeli, neque Filius, nisi solus Pater. 
Post dispensationem autem impletam nequaquam hoc dixit, postquam Deus 
zllum superexaltavit, et donavit et nomen quod est super omne nomen. 
Nam postea et Filius cognovit scientiam a Patre suscipiens, etiam de die 
consummationis et hora, ut iam non solum Pater sciret de ea, sed etiam Filius. 
Et in Actzbus quidem Afostolorum convenientes apostoli interrogaverunt 
eum dicentes : Domine, s¢ tn hoc tempore restitues regnum Israel? Mlle 
autem dixit ad eos: (Won est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta quae 
Later posuit in sua potestate. Et quoniam in sua potestate tempora et 
momenta consummationis mundi et restitutionis regni Israel posuit, ideo 
quod nondum fuerat praedefinitum a Deo, nemo poterat scire. Si autem ita 
est, praefinivit quidem consummationem facere mundi, non autem et tempora 
et momenta praefinivit quae posuit in sua potestate, ut si voluerit ea augere, 
sic iudicans augeat ea; si autem abbreviare, abbreviet, nemine cognoscente. 
Et ideo de temporibus et momentis consummationis mundi in sua posuit 
potestate, ut consequenter humano generi in suo arbitrio constituto talia vel 
talia agenti definiat iudicium debitum. Multa et in prophetis est invenire ad 
utilitatem audientium scripta, in praeceptis et denunciationibus, quasi Deo non 
praefiniente quicquam de iis, sed puniente quidem si peccaverint, salvante 
autem si praecepta servayerint. Et sicut in illis non introduxit scriptura 
Deum praefinientem, sed secundum utilitatem audientium proloquentem, 
sic intelligendum est et de die consummationis et hora.’ 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 117 


describes as ‘more celebrated than the above.’ It is 
that Christ is speaking in the person of the Church. ‘ For 
while the Church, which is His body, does not know that 
day and hour, so long neither the Son Himself is said to 
know it; in order that He may then be understood to know 
when all His members also know.’ This interpretation 
is paralleled by the interpretation of 1 Cor. xv. 28, accord- 
ing to which the subjection of the Christ means the 
subjection of the Church in Christ’. The sense thus given 
is modified by the suggestion that to ‘know’ means to 
experience. It is the experience of the glory of the last 
day which lies in the mind of the Father alone, unrealized 
alike by the Head and the members of the Church. But 
Origen seems to return to the suggestion of a real 
ignorance or incompleteness of some sort in Christ, 
owing to His having put Himself in our place: ‘ But 
the consummation of each single person ... the Father 
alone knows ; for the Son, accompanying and preceding 
His followers, and willing (their salvation) is, so to 
speak, about to come, and delays that they who seek 


1 7b.‘ Alia expositio, quae famosior est iis quae iam tradita sunt, aliud dicit 
de eo quod scriptum est: Megue Filews, nisi solus Pater. Dicit, inquit, 
alicubi de Salvatore apostolus, et de rebus in fine saeculi ordinandis, hoc 
modo: Cum autem subtecta wlli fuerint omnia, tunc et tpse Filius subiectus 
erit et gut sibt subdidit omnia, ut set Deus omniatn omnibus. Et videtur 
per haec dicere subiectionem Filii fieri subiectionem omnium qui ei erant 
subliciendi, et adventum eorum per Filium ad Deum, et perfectionem. Si 
ergo bene dicitur hoc de Filii subiectione ad Patrem futura, ut tunc hi, qui 
futuri sunt Christi et adhaeserunt ei, cum ipso Christo Patri subiiciantur : 
quare non et de die illa et hora neminem scire, neque Filium, similiter 
exponemus ? Donec enim ecclesia, quae est corpus Christi, nescit diem illam 
et horam, tam diu nec ipse Filius dicitur scire diem illam et horam; ut 
tunc intelligatur scire, quando scierint et omnia membra eius.’ Cf. de 
Princtp. ii. 8. 5. 


118 Dissertations. 


to follow Him may be able to do so and be found with 
Him at that day and hour! 

In another passage, where we have the original Greek 
to examine, Origen appears to postulate a real entrance 
of the Son into human ignorance. He is conceived to 
have really emptied Himself and descended to actual 
human limits. Origen is considering how the words 
of the prophet (Jer. i. 6), ‘Iam a child: I cannot speak,’ 
can be applied to Christ. ‘He replies’ by referring to 
the testimony of the Gospel. ‘ Jesus, while yet a child, 
before He became a man, since He had “emptied Him- 
self,’ is seen to “ advance.” Now no one who is already 
perfect advances, for to advance implies the need of 
advance. Therefore He advanced in stature, in wisdom, 
in favour with God and man. For because He had 
emptied Himself in coming down to us, therefore, 
having emptied Himself, He proceeded to take again 
that of which He had emptied Himself, such self- 
emptying having been a voluntary act. What wonder 
then if He advanced in wisdom and stature and in favour 
with God and man, and that it should be truly said of 
Him by Isaiah [ vii. 15, 16], that “ He shall choose the good 
and refuse the evil, before He knows evil and good*” ?’ 


1 7b. ‘Et diem ergo consummationis huiusmodi et corruptionis saeculi nemo 
scit, neque angeli caelorum, neque Filius Dei, de sanctis Deo melius provi- 
dente, ut simul fiant in beatitudine quae futura est post diem et horam 
consummationis illius . . . Et uniuscuiusque autem consummationem ... solus 
scit Pater: quoniam Filius comitans, et praecedens ante sequentes, et volens, 
ut ita dicam, venturus est, et tardat, ut possint eum sequi qui certant sequi 
eum, et sequentes eum inveniantur cum eo in die illa et hora.’ 

2 in Ter. hom. i. 7 €i 5 wat awd ebayyediov Set AapBave mapaderypa, 
"Ingots ovK avip yevopmevos, GAN’ Ett Tardiov wy, émel Exévwoev EavTOV, TpoeKon- 
rev’ ovdeis yap mpoKdmTEL TEeTEAELWMEVOS, GAAG TpoKdTTEL SEedpevos TMpoKoTASs* 
ovKody mpoékonTev HALK!a, MpoeKoTTE Gopia, mpocKoMTE XapiTL Tapa OE@ Kal 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 119 


This learning on the part of the Son is like a grown 
man’s learning to talk like a child. Because he is full 
grown, he has to put violence on himself to talk with 
children after their manner. So the Son sets Himself to 
learn what lies below Him. Subsisting in the majesty 
of the glory of God, He does not speak human words, 
He does not, as it were, know how to speak to those 
below. Therefore it is that when He comes into the 
human body, He says to the Father ‘I cannot speak: 
I know indeed things too great for human speech. But 
Thou wishest me to speak to men. I have not yet 
acquired human speech. I have Thy speech, I am Thy 
Word, I can speak to Thee; but I know not how to 
speak to men for I am a child ?/ 

Further on the language of the Incarnation is 
described, in St. Paul’s phrase, as the ‘foolishness of 
God. The self-emptying of the Incarnation is a coming 
down of the divine Word into conditions in which the 
divine wisdom must become what, compared to its own 
essential character, is foolishness, though as compared 
to all human wisdom it is ‘ wiser than men.’ 


avOpwras. ei yap éxévwoev EauTov KataBaivey évravoa, Kal Kevwoas éavTov 
>: , s ~ > mee 5] / € / c ‘\ / c / , oe 
€AapBave maduy TavTa ap’ wy éxévwoev EauTOV, Exdy Kevwoas EavTév’ Ti GToTOV 

> ‘4 A / , ‘ c , \ / \ lal We 28. / 
avrov Kal mpokexopévar copia kai HArkia Kal yapiTt Tapa O6@ Kai avOpwras, 

ues , Sees is NESE an AG SERA EN , , 
kai GAnOevecOar wept abtov ré° IIpiv } yv@var aitov Kaddv 7 Twovnpov, éx- 
A€ferae 70 dyadov Kal dreiOel movnpia ; 

me Ld or \ c \ > , 2 7 > f > > 

1 16.8 pavOaver ovv, nal oiovel dvadayBdavee emothunv od peyadwy, GAA 
imodceotépwv. Kal Wonep pavOava, Biatdpevos épavTov WeddAiCay, STE TaLdiows 
diaréyoua ov yap émordayevos madioti, iv’ ovTws eimw, Aadrelv, Biacouae 

’ af oe \ > ~ v4 “a / ~ A“ , > 
TEAELOS WY ; OUTWS Kal ev TH wEyarELOTHTL THS Soéns TOU BEod TUYXaVwY, Ov 
Aare dvOpwmva, ovK cide POeyyecOa Tois KaTw. Gre Se Epxerae eis copa 
2 , 0 Aone in goes ra hk Paice? Ae! et , , > 
avOpwmivov, AEyer KaTa Tas upxas’ Ouk emioTapat AaAELY, OTL VEewTEpOS Eimt. 

2 2b. hom. viii. 8 péAAEL Te EmtTOAMGY 6 AOyos Kal Aéyew" OTL TO EmENuRoaV TO 
Biw éxévaoev éautov, iva TH Kevwpartt adTov TANpwOn 6 Kdopos. ei Se Exevwoev 
éxeivo 70 Eminunoay TO Big, avo éxeivo TO Kévwpya copia Hy 67. TO pwpov Tod 


120 Dissertations. 


We may notice one other passage from Origen 

bearing on the subject because it is highly ambiguous 
and, in company with other passages, illustrates the 
tentative uncertainty of Origen’s view. In Jerome's 
version of the Homilies on St. Luke, the comment of 
Origen on the words in St. Luke ii. 40 and 52, Jesus 
‘waxed strong, being filled with wisdom’ and ‘ Jesus 
increased in wisdom, &c., is twofold. On the first 
passage he declares that His wisdom was for a boy 
supernatural: ‘Replebatur sapientia. This is beyond 
human nature, nay, beyond the whole rational creation.’ 
‘We doubt not that something divine appeared in the 
flesh of Jesus!” On the second he comments as fol- 
lows: ‘Was He not wise before, that He should increase 
in wisdom? or is it that,as He had emptied Himself 
when He took “the form of a servant,” so now He was 
resuming that which He had lost, and was being filled 
with excellences which He seemed to have lost when 
a little before He had taken the body??’ 
Gcod copwrepoyv TaY avOpwrwy éctiv, A passage (quoted by Newman, Zyracts 
Theol. Eccl. p. 314) might, taken by itself, be interpreted to deny the reality 
in Christ of a truly human activity: ‘omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod in- 
telligit, Deus est’ (de Princ. ii. 6.6); but in its context it would appear that 
Origen is only vindicating such a union of Christ’s human soul with God as 
renders possible His moral unalterableness. The words which follow are: 
‘et ideo non convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest quae inconvertibilitatem 
ex Verbi Dei unitate indesinenter ignita possedit.’ In such a passage as cov. 
Cels. iii. 41, it appears that the transformation of the humanity into an ethereal 
and divine quality there spoken of refers to the period after the resurrection ; 
cf. con. Cels. ii. 63-67, and Huet, Ovzgenzana, |. il. c. 2. qu. 3. 17. 

+ in Luc. hom, xix ‘Puer. . . replebatur sapientia. Hoc hominum 
natura non recipit, ut ante duodecim annos sapientia compleatur. Aliud 
est partem habere sapientiae, aliud sapientia esse completum. Non ambi- 
gimus ergo, divinum aliquid in carne Jesu apparuisse: et non solum super 


hominem, sed super omnem quoque rationalem creaturam.’ 
* in Luc. hom. xx ‘Numquid sapiens non erat, ut sapientior fieret? An 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 121 


These passages from Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, 
have been dwelt on and quoted at length because they 
SGem! to prove— 

(1) That the ‘apostolic tradition’ as understood by 
these great fathers, had nothing to say in regard to the 
consciousness of the incarnate Son. Men were left 
then, as now, to the examination of our Lord’s words 
and to conclusions from the principles involved in the 
Incarnation. 

(2) That there were different opinions and tones of 
thought on this great subject in the second century. 
There were those who, like Irenaeus and (generally) 
Origen, took the language of the Gospels as strictly true, 
and believed in the limitation of our Lord’s conscious- 
ness, whether through a ‘quiescence’ of the divine activity, 
or as a sympathetic entry on the part of the eternal Word 
into a consciousness lower than His own. ‘There were 
those on the other hand who would argue, like Clement, 
that Christ, as God, could not grow in knowledge, and 
who, accepting the ‘more celebrated’ interpretation of 
our Lord’s words, ascribed ignorance to Him, not in 
Moimself, but. in His Church: 
quoniam evacuaverat se formam servi accipiens, id quod amiserat resumebat 
et replebatur virtutibus quas paullo ante, assumpto corpore, visus fuerat 
relinquere?” The visus fuerat (and videbatur above) indicate a hesitation 
in Origen’s mind, which is apparent in other places, as to the nature of 
the xévwous: see, for instance, coz. Ce/s. iv. 15. At the end of this passage 
he declares the Word unaffected in His own nature by the affections of the 
human flesh and mind, and indeed uses language which would make the 
humanity a mere transitory veil of His divine glory. In other passages 
where the truth of the human mind is better guarded, the tone is very 


Nestorian, and coloured by the idea of the pre-existence of all souls, including 
the soul of Jesus, e.g. de Princip. iv. 31. 


122 Dissertations. 


§ 3. 
The antt-Arian writers who admit a human 
1onorance. 


It has been worth while dwelling at length on these 
passages, not only because they indicate the absence of 
any original tradition on the subject we are dealing with, 
but also because they represent, strange as it may seem, 
the highest level of ecclesiastical thought on this subject 
for a long time to come. In the third and fourth 
centuries the theological attention of the Church was 
diverted from the Incarnation proper to the doctrine 
of the Trinity. The conflict was against Unitarian 
Sabellianism on the one hand, which would have 
annihilated the ‘ distinction of persons,’ and the extreme 
subordinationism on the other which was countenanced 
by some language of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, 
and which afforded an excuse for what was none the less 
the essentially different Arian position according to which 
the Son was no more than the highest of the creatures ?. 
As a consequence of this long and complicated 
controversy, the Trinitarian terminology was arrived at 
by which the Church affirmed the existence of three 
‘persons’ (jmootdceis or personae) coeternal, coequal and 

1 Of recent years a fresh interest has been given to the question of the 
origin and meaning of Arianism, by the writings of Gwatkin and Harnack. 
The summary of Robertson in Athanasius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) 


pp. Xxi-xxx. is admirable. One cannot but hope that it may exist shortly 
in a more accessible form. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 123 


coessential in the one essence or substance of the 
Godhead. This controversy was carried on mainly as 
regards the person of the Son, and as a result no aspect 
of His essential relation to the Father was left un- 
touched ; but very little was contributed as regards the 
doctrine of His incarnation, or specially as regards His 
human consciousness. When the Arians however pro- 
duced texts such as ‘Jesus increased in wisdom,’ ‘of 
that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son,’ 
as evidence of the essential inferiority of the Son, 
Athanasius referred them to our Lord’s humanity, on the 
assumption that in respect of His humanity there was 
a real growth and a real limitation of knowledge. This 
assumption—though it may be said to have been made 
incidentally, by way of setting aside the proposed texts 
as irrelevant to the discussion of the Godhead, rather 
than by way of positive treatment, and though it is 
not made without vacillation—is still clearly made by 
Athanasius, and it is implied that it is a common 
assumption of Churchmen. A concession, similar to 
Athanasius’ assumption of a human ignorance, is to be 
found in Gregory of Nazianzus, but it is not very clear: 
and St. Basil, while not himself assenting, allows such 
a concession of human ignorance. The passages referred 
to are as follows: 

ATHANASIUS, in Orat. adv. Arian. iil. 51-54, com- 
ments on St. Luke ii. 52 mpoéxomtev tH copia. His chief 
contention is that this is no advance of the Word or 
Wisdom as such, but only in respect of the humanity He 
assumed: 61a TodTo, os mpoeimopev, ovx 7 copia, 7} copia 


5) , eS are \ / Ay aie: Nea SOS , 5) a 
éotiv, avtn Ka’ é€avTijy mpoexomTEv’ GAAG TO avOpwTtuvoy Ev TH 


124 Dissertations. 


/ / id lal > Mes IE 4 x b) / 
copia TpoeKomTEv, UTEpavaBaivoy Kat OALyov TiV avOpwrivynv 
\ a 
gdvow kal Oeomolovpevoy Kal Gpyavoy adtis mpos Ti evepyevay 
mn / \ \ yA > ees , \ , 
THs OeoTnTOS Kal THY EkAap iy avTHS yLvoEvoV Kat datvo- 


las a ce Pp) Nhe 
Bevov Tac. 610 ovdE Ele 6 Adyos TpoeKkoTTEV, GAG 6” 


Ingots, 
OmEep Ovowa yevopevos AvOpwros 6 KUpios EkAHOn, @s €ivat 
Tis avOpwrivns dioews tiv Tpokomyv ovTws ws EV Tots 
eumpoobev etzwovev. Here Athanasius does recognize 
a human advance: more than a mere increased mani- 
festation of the Godhead in the human body which he 
had spoken of in the previous chapter (52), tod céparos 
ipa eotly 7 mpoKom) avtod yap TpoKOmTOVTOS, TpoEKOTTEY EV 
avT® Kal 7 pavepwo.s Tis OedTyTos Tots dpdow.v. He also 
recognizes that the subject of the advance is the eternal 
person, because He appropriated or identified with 
Himself the human nature which He assumed. Thus 
speaking of the human states of trouble, fear, progress, 
&c., he says ovk jv té1a @toer Tov Adyou Tatra, 7) Adyos iv, 
év b€ TH ToladTa Tacxoven capKl jv 6 Aoyos (Cc. 55); ovdE 
yap ov6e €Ewdev Gyros Tod Adyou eyivero 7) TpoKoT7, ola éotiv, 
jv elpykapev’ €v atT@ yap nv » cap€ 1) TpoKdmTOVoa, Kat 
avtod A€yerar (c. 53); avdyKyn ev TacyXovTL geyare Kal KAatovTe 
kal KapvovTe yevopevov avrod, adtod A€yerOar PETA TOU O@paTOS 
kat tadta dmep early td.a THs capkds (c. 56). Compare 
the language of the Epistle to Epictetus, c. 6, as to the 
Word ‘appropriating’ (idvo7oetcOar) the properties of 
the body, as being His own body. 

His language as to St. Mark xiii. 32 (ovddels otdev... 
ovdé 6 vids) is perhaps more explicit. First, it is not 
gua Son that Christ is ignorant. See Orat. adv. Ar. ill. 
44 61d TotTo Kal mepl adyyéAwv A€ywv, ovK ElpnKey ETTAava- 


Batvwv ori otd€ TO TvEtya TO Aytov? GAN €old7HoE, SEeLKVYS 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 125 


kata dvo Taira Ort, ef TO TvEdua oldev, TOAAG pGdAdov 6 

Adyos, 7 Adyos eotiv, otdev, Tap’ ob Kal TO TvEdpa AauBaver 
° \ a 

Kal Ott, Tept TOD mVEvpaTos oLwTHTAs, Pavepoy TeTOInKEY STL 

TEpt THs avOpwrivns adtod eLTovpylas eAEyev o88e 6 vids. 

But che Christians recognize that this expression ‘the 
Son knows not’ is spoken by Christ truly as man (c. 45); 
c SS , \ , te ¢€ 2) ’ nt 
ol 6€ didoxplotot Kal xpioTopopoL yLvoOoKopEV @S OUK AyVOGY 
6 Adyos 7} Adyos eatly eXeyev ovK otda, Oise yap’ AAA TO 
=) , \ oA na 5) , y+ , 5) oo G) a \ 
avOpativov Seikvus OTL TOY aVOpOTMY toLOY EoTL TO AyvoEtY Kal 
6Tt TapKa ayvootaay evedvaaro, év 7) OY capKixGs Eeyev’ od 
oda, Cf. c. 43 ws pev Adyos yuvdoxet ws € AvOpwros ayvoet 

Ia N e€ , 3 cal n ’ yxy an Jan iS 
... €l0@s ws Oeds, Ayvoet TAapPKLKGS. OVK ElpnKE yoy, OVE 6 


9 


vids Tov Peod older, iva fp) OEedTNS Ayvoodcoa haivnrar’ aAN 
ATAGS ob8€ 6 vids? tva Tod €€ avOpdTwY yevowevov viod 7 
dyvota 77. C. 46 domep yap avOpwros yevopevos pet avOpd- 
Tov Ted Kal Supa kal Tacyet, otTws meTa pev TOV dvOpsTHV 
as GvOpwros obK older, OeikGs O€ Ev TO TaTpl Gv Adyos Kal 
copia otter. 

Inc. 47 however he assimilates our Lord’s profession 
of ignorance to St. Paul’s, when he says ‘ whether in the 
body or out of the body, I know not’ (see 2 Cor. xii. 2), 
and he assumes that St. Paul really knew the conditions 
under which the revelation was given to him, though 
he concealed his knowledge. Thus in this passage he 
seems to make our Lord’s profession of ignorance only 
‘economic. On the other hand in c. 48 he reaffirms that 
in professing ignorance Christ did not lie, ‘for He spoke 
humanly—as man I do not know’ («at otre éyevoaro totro 
elpnkds* avOpwrivas yap eimev, os GvOpw70s, obk oi8a). 

Agreeably to the hesitation exhibited by Athanasius 
in these passages, when he is commenting on our Lord’s 


126 Dissertations. 


questions, ‘where have ye laid him?’ ‘how many 
loaves have ye?’ he both admits a possible ignorance 
as appertaining to our Lord’s manhood, and at the same 
time explains the questions as not in fact involving 
ignorance. See Orat. adv. Ar. iii. 37 Stay épwrad 6 Kupios 
OUK GyVOOV. .. ETEPHTA, GAAA yiwdoKwV OTEP HpwTa avTds... 
av 6€ diAovetkGouv ETL O1a TO eTEPWTGY, AkoveTwoaY OTL EV 
pev TH OedtyTL OvK EoTW dyvota, THs 5€ capKods tidy eat TO 
ayvoetv, kabatep etpynra. 

ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orat. xxx. 15, says 
with reference to St. Mark xiii. 32, 7) maow ebdndrov Ort 
yorker ev os Oeds, ayvoeiv b€ dyow os dvOpwTos, av TIS 
TO dalvopevov Xwpion tod voovpevov”. He notices that 
ignorance is attributed not to the ‘Son of God’ but to 
‘the Son’ simply; and this he says gives us opportunity— 
gore tiv ayvovay trohapBavew etl TO evoeBeoTEpoy, TO 
avOpwrtrve, wi TO Oelw, Tavtrnv oytCouevovs. But he goes 
on (c. 16) to suggest that another interpretation is 
tenable which makes the words mean only that ‘the 
Son does not know apart from the Father. Indeed, 
taking the passage as a whole, it must be admitted that 
he is not disposed to think of our incarnate Lord as in 
any sense really ignorant. 

Previously (c. 5) he has interpreted the subjection of 
the Son (1 Cor. xv. 28) as the subjection of us in Him: 
He presents us to God, €avrod tovotpevos TO tperepov. 


1 St. John xi. 34; St. Mark vi. 38. 

* Later writers, Eulogius of Alexandria (see p.159) and John of Damascus, 
de Fide Orthod, iii. 21, take Gregory to mean by this phrase that Christ was 
only ignorant in His humanity, if you consider the humanity as an outward 
object in abstraction from the Godhead to which in fact you know it to 
have been united: and this is not an unfair interpretation of the passage. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 127 


(Cf. Gregory of Nyssa adv. Eunom. xi. 14, P. G. xlv. 
p. 557 GAAG kal mdvtwov Tv avOpdsTwv THY Tpos Tov OBedv 
brorayny, Stav évwOevtes of TavTes GAARAOLS OLA THs TloTEws 
ty oGpa Tod Kuplov Tod ev Tacw dvTos yevopeba, Tod viod 
mpos TOV TaTépa Urotayiy 6 andoToAos A€yet.) So the cry 
‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ is the 
cry of our sinful human nature deserted by God, now 
taken upon the lips of Him who was bringing us near 
to God; He, the Christ, was not deserted (0d yap aitds 
éyxatahéAeumTat, ... ev EavT@ de TUTOL TO HjuerEpor). 

St. BASIL considers the meaning of St. Mark xiii. 
32, at length (Z%. 236), and while he prefers to in- 
terpret ‘No man knoweth, nor do the angels, nor did 
the Son know except the Father, i.e. the cause of the 
Son’s knowing is from the Father’ (c. 2), he admits that 
‘one who refers the ignorance to Him who in His 
incarnation took everything human upon Himself, and 
advances in wisdom and favour with God and man, 
will not fall outside the orthodox apprehension of the 
matter’ (rd Tijs dyvolas emt Tov olkovopuKGs TavTa KaTa- 
deLduevoy Kal TpoKdnTovta Tapa ed Kal avOpdrois copia Kat 
xdpitt AapBdvwv tis, odK ew Ths edoeBods evexOjoerar 
dtavolas)'. 

Among westerns ST. AMBROSE has been quoted as 
admitting a real increase of knowledge in Christ as 
man. Cf. de Jucarn. vii. 72 ‘Jesus proficiebat aetate et 
sapientia et gratia apud Deum et homines. Quomodo 

1 It should be noted that St. Basil's argument in part depends on the 
position that St. Matthew, who says ‘ the Father ov/y knows’ (6 narijp Hovos, 
xxiv. 36), does not admit the words ‘neither the Son’; but according 


to the true reading St. Matthew and St. Mark both have these latter 
words. 


128 Dissertations. 


proficiebat Sapientia Dei? Doceat te ordo verborum. 
Profectus est aetatis et profectus sapientiae, sed humanae 
est. Ideo aetatem ante praemisit ut secundum hominem 
crederes dictum, aetas enim non divinitatis sed corporis 
est. Ergo si proficiebat aetate hominis, proficiebat sapi- 
entia hominis: sapientia autem sensu proficit quia a sensu 
sapientia. He protests that to recognize real human 
increase in Christ is not to divide the Christ but to dis- 
tinguish the substance of the flesh (manhood) and of the 
Godhead, cf. Expos. in Luc. it.63,641. On the other hand 
St. Ambrose, when (de Fide, v.16. 193) he comes to deal 
with the words ‘of that day and hour knoweth no man 
... neither the Son,’ after first suggesting that the words 
nec Filius, as not being represented in the old Greek codices, 
are an interpolation”, and after, secondly, suggesting that 
‘the Son’ means ‘the Son of Man’ or Christ in His 
humanity, goes on finally to deny the ignorance of 
Christ altogether, like all late westerns, and to make 
the’ profession (merely economic ;. see v. 07. 210 * Bavest 
in scripturis consuetudo divinis,... ut Deus dissimulet 


1 The distinction of the two natures is expressed in Zxfos. 77 Luc. x. 61, as 
if the humanity did not really belong to the person of the Son. Comment- 
ing on 77¢stis est anima mea, he writes ‘ Tristis autem est non ipse, sed 
anima. Non est tristis sapientia, non divina substantia, sed anima.’ Cf. 
Hilary de 7rin. ix. 5, where it is argued that the things said by Christ, 
‘secundum hominem,’ are not to be taken as said ‘de se ipso,’ i.e. of the 
divine nature. 

It is often assumed, as by Dr. Liddon, Dzvinzty of our Lord (Longmans, 
ed. 12) p. 467, that St. Ambrose is here referring to Mark xiii. 32. ‘In this 
case St. Ambrose’s statement would be a simple mistake. But in fact, as 
shown by the words z7sz solus Pater, he is referring to St. Matt. xxiv. 36, 
where many—though not the best—Greek codices do omit od5é 6 vids. The 
reading is discussed by Jerome in a passage quoted p. 135. This fact how- 
ever does not improve Ambrose’s argument, for he has simply left Mark 
xiii. 32, where the reading is undoubted, out of sight. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 129 


se nescire quod novit!. Et in hoc ergo unitas divinitatis 
et unitas dispositionis in Patre probatur et Frilio, si 
quemadmodum Deus Pater cognita dissimulat, ita Filius 
etiam in hoc imago Dei quae sibi sunt nota dissimulet.’ 
Again, v. 18. 220 ‘Mavult Dominus nimio in discipulos 
amore propensus, petentibus his quae cognitu inutilia 
iudicaret, videri ignorare quae noverat, quam negare: 
plusque amat nostram utilitatem instruere quam suam 
potentiam demonstrare.’ He goes on however to mention 
the interpretation of some ‘less timid than himself’ who, 
while denying that the Son of God in His divine nature 
could be ignorant, affirm that in respect of His assump- 
tion of humanity He could both grow in knowledge and 
be ignorant of the future. I may add that Ambrose 
appears to deny that our Lord prayed for Himself: 
‘non utique propter suffragium,’ he says, ‘sed propter 
exemiplum (Aafos: iz Luc. vs 10). Ch v.042‘orat 
Dominus non ut pro se obsecret sed ut pro me impetret.’ 
The above quotations show that St. Ambrose cannot 
be reckoned with Athanasius as affirming the reality of 
a human ignorance in our Lord. But perhaps he is 
hardly consistent with himself. 

1 Ambrose is referring to passages such as Gen. xi. 5, where God is 
represented as coming down to earth to see, as if He did not know. Such 


expressions belong, one can hardly doubt, originally to a period when God’s 
spiritual omnipresence was very imperfectly realized. 


130 Dissertations. 


§ 4. 


Anti-Arian writers especially of the west. 


These admissions by anti-Arian writers of a real 
human ignorance are, though valuable, still in a measure 
unsatisfactory, and that for two reasons. 

(1) The theologians who make these admissions do 
not really face the question of the relation of the divine 
person to the human conditions into which He entered. 
What is meant when it is said, ‘ the Son was ignorant in 
respect of His manhood’? Does this mean that within 
the sphere of His incarnate life the Son Himself was 
submitting to conditions of limitation? Or does it 
mean that He simply annexed a human consciousness 
to the divine, so that always, in every act He was con- 
scious with the divine consciousness, whatever else He 
may have been? This question, neither theologically 
nor exesetically. is met full face. 

(2) Anti-Arian theology shows a rapid tendency to 
withdraw the admission of ahumanignorance. Already, 
as has been said, Basil and Gregory, even in a measure 
Athanasius, lead the way in retiring upon a more or less 
forced interpretation of our Lord’s words. Ephraim 
Syrus writes boldly—in his commentary upon Tatian’s 
Diatessaron—‘ Christ, though He knew the moment of 
His advent, yet that they might not ask Him any more 
about it, said J kzow zt not}. Didymus of Alexandria 


1 Evang. Concordant. Expos. (Aucher and Moesinger, Venice, 1876) p. 16. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 131 


introduces into a beautiful passage about the divine con- 
descension the idea of the merely ‘economic’ ignorance’. 
St. Cyril will be found on the whole to follow him; and 
St. Chrysostom, trained though he was in the literalism 
of Antioch, adopts the same view *. 

This withdrawal is due in part no doubt to the fatal 
tendency which haunts the Church to extreme reaction 
from perilous error; in part also it is to be accounted 
for by the metaphysical tendency of the time to ascribe 
to God not only unchangeableness of essential being, 
purpose, and power, such as Scripture ascribes to Him, 
but also unchangeableness in such rigid ‘ metaphysical ’ 
sense as would exclude all idea of self-accommodation, 
and therefore all idea of real self-limitation, on God’s 
part to human conditions *. The tendency to explain 
away our Lord’s express words, which those theologians 
exhibit who are responsible for this withdrawal, meets 
in the East with at least one vigorous protest from 
Theodoret?. 

In a phrase which commends itself to modern con- 
sciences he wrote: ‘If He knew the day and, wishing to 


1 in Psalm. \xviii. 6 (P. G. xxxix. p. 1453) Kal yap Sidaoxados TeAciav 
Exav emorhuny bid ovyKataBdcewr Trois eicayopévos TadTa paivera yvw- 
oxov (i. e, appears to know those things oly) dv eioty éxecvor xwpntikol. 

2 in Matt. hom. \xxvii. 1 and 2. He argues at length in the usual strain 
against the vea/ ignorance. 

3 See below, p. 173. 

* Repr. xii. Capp. Cyril. c. 4 (P. G. lxxvi. 412 a) ei 6€ oide THY Hpepay, 
xpintew 5& Bovddpevos ayvoeiv Evel, dpGs eis Toiav Braodnpiay xwpet 
70 ovvayopuevov’ 7) yap GAnbea PevSerar, The passage is an argument for 
the distinct reality of our Lord’s manhood from the phrases in the Gospels 
which attribute to Him prayer, ignorance, and the sense of being deserted 
of God. Such expressions cannot be attributed to the Word, Theodoret 
argues, but to the manhood which the Word assumed. 


Ke 2 


132 Dissertations. 


conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what blasphemy is 
the result of this conclusion. Truth tells a lie.’ 

But the protest ‘fell flat: Neither the interest in 
accurate exegesis, nor the enthusiasm for truth to fact 
as distinct from truth which is edifying, was adequate 
to sustain it. It is reheard in a remarkable phrase of 
a writer reckoned as Leontius of Byzantium, to be 
mentioned later, but the ‘explanation’ protested against 
prevailed, and in the end there is no protest. 

Hilary, Ambrose?, and Jerome led the way in the west 
with the doctrine of our Lord’s ‘ economic’ ignorance, the 
doctrine, that is, that our Lord knew, but represented 
Himself as ignorant for purposes of edification. Augus- 
tine retains this way out of the difficulty caused by 
St. Mark xiii. 32, but in interpreting our Lord’s growth 
in wisdom and His cry of desolation upon the Cross he 
seems to regard Christ as spoken of or speaking in the 
person of His Church, not for Himself, thus returning to 
a mode of ‘explanation’ with which Origen had already 
made us familiar. Moreover St. Augustine seems to 
have regarded any belief in our Lord’s actual human 
ignorance as heretical. When a monk from Gaul appeared 
in Africa,named Leporius, accused of Pelagian and quasi- 
Nestorian views, Augustine induced him to abandon his 
error; accordingly he is made to recant among other 
things his previous assertion of a real ignorance in 
Christ as man, and made to recant it as positively 
heretical. 

The following passages will be found to justify the 
assertions of the above paragraph : 


1 As explained above, § 3. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 133 


HILARY de 7rinit. ix. 62 ‘Non patitur autem in nobis 
doctor gentium Paulus hance impii erroris professionem, 
ut ignorasse aliquid unigenitus Deus existimetur: ait 
enim, zzstitutt in adilectione, in ommes divitias adimple- 
tionts intellectus, in agnitionem sacramenti Det Christi, in 
guo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconsi. 
Deus Christus sacramentum est, et ommes sapientiae et 
scientiae in eo thesauri latent. Portioni vero et univer- 
sitati non potest convenire: quia neque pars omnia 
intelligitur, et omnia partem non patiuntur intelligi. 
Filius enim si diem nescit, iam non omnes in eo 
scientiae thesauri sunt: diem non ignorat, omnes in se 
scientiae thesauros continens. Sed meminisse nos con- 
venit, occultos in eo istos scientiae thesauros esse, neque 
idcirco, quia occulti sint, non inesse: cum per id quod 
Deus est, in eo insint ; per id vero quod sacramentum 
est, occultentur. Non occultum autem neque ignoratum 
est nobis sacramentum Dei Christi, in quo absconsi 
omnes scientiae thesauri sunt. Et quia sacramentum 
ipse est, videamus an in his, quae nescit, ignorans sit. 
Si enim in ceteris professio ignorandi non habet nesciendi 
intelligentiam 1: ne nunc quidem quod nescit ignorat. 
Nam cum ignoratio eius, secundum quod omnes thesauri 
in eo scientiae latent, dispensatio? potius quam ignoratio 
sit, habes causam ignorandi sine intelligentia nesciendi *,’ 


1 i.e. is not to be understood as implying absence of knowledge; e. g. 
God in the O. T. is often spoken of in terms suggesting partial ignorance. 

21. €. aly Economy. 

5 i.e. you have the reason of his (professed) ignorance, without having 
to explain it as equivalent to absence of knowledge. Cf. ix. 71 ‘idcirco 
nescire se dicat ne et alii sciant’ and x. 37 ‘non ergo sibi tristis est neque 
sibi orat, sed illis quos monet orare pervigiles.’ It must be noted that in 
fact St. Paul’s expressions in Col. ii. 2, 3, and 9, 10, refer to our Lord in 
the state of glory—‘ the head of all principality and power.’ We can- 
not directly answer the question, Would St. Paul have applied these 


134 Dissertations. 


There is, it is true, one passage! of doubtful genuine- 
ness in the de Trititate (ix. 75) in which our Lord's 
nescience is assimilated to His hunger and thirst, sad- 
ness and fear, as an affection properly belonging to the 
manhood which He assumed. But supposing the pas- 
sage to be genuine, it must be remembered that Hilary, 
unlike most other fathers, tends to explain away all our 
Lord’s human affections. He emphasizes that in Him 
the Godhead was the centre of personality to both soul 
and body (‘ut corporis sui sic et animae suae princeps 
Deus, ‘ Deus Verbum consummavit hominem viventem,’ 
x. 15); he considers that in consequence even His 
‘human’ nature was superhuman (‘natura quae supra 
hominem est,’ x. 44); he points as evidence of this 
to His walking on the water, glorifying His body in the 
transfiguration, passing through closed doors after the 
resurrection (x. 23), and he draws the general conclusion 
that though His human body was susceptible of physical 
impressions of all sorts from without, yet He did not, in 
and for Himself, feel physical pain or mental grief 
or anxiety. He received the ‘impetus passionis, but 
did not experience the ‘ dolor passionis. ‘ Habens ad 
patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed naturam 
non habens ad dolendum’ (x. 23). ‘ Non est itaque in ea 
natura quae supra hominem est humanae trepidationis 
anxietas’ (x. 44). ‘Habens quidem in se sui corporis 


expressions to our Lord in the state of His humiliation? Hilary draws no 
distinction between the state of Christ’s body or soul before and after the 
resurrection. 

* Another passage of similar import in x. 8 (Erasmus’ text) is interesting, 
but certainly not genuine. Hilary is again quoted on his general idea of 
the Incarnation on p. 147. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 135 


veritatem, sed non habens naturae infirmitatem ’ (x. 35). 
In dying His manhood was not overcome by death, but 
He, the Lord of life, who lifted the human body which 
He had assumed out of the power of death, Himself 
‘save up’ His human spirit and soul by His own act 
into the Father’s hands (x. 11). 

JEROME writes thus zz Jatt. xxiv. 36 (ed. Vallarsi, 
Vii. p. 199): 

‘De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque angeli 
caclorum, nist solus Pater. In quibusdam latinis codi- 
cibus additum est, zeque Fulaus: cum in graecis, et 
maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non 
habeatur adscriptum: sed quia in nonnullis legitur, dis- 
serendum videtur. Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi 
ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et dicunt: 
non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat. Contra 
quos breviter ista dicenda sunt: cum omnia tempora 
fecerit Iesus, hoc est, Verbum Dei (omnia enim per 
wpsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est mnthil) in 
omnibus autem temporibus etiam dies iudicii sit: 
qua consequentia potest eius ignorare partem cuius 
totum noverit? Hoc quoque dicendum est: quid est 
maius, notitia Patris an iudicii? si maius_ novit, 
quomodo ignorat quod minus est? Scriptum legimus 
omnia quae Patris sunt mihi tradita sunt; si omnia Patris 
Filii sunt, qua ratione untus sibi diei notitiam reservavit, 
et noluit eam, communicare cum Filio? Sed) et toe 
inferendum: si novissimum diem temporum ignorat, 
ignorat et pene ultimum!? et retrorsum omnes. Non enim 
potest fieri ut qui primum ignorat sciat quid secundum 
sit. Igitur quia putavimus non ignorare Filium con- 
summationis diem, causa reddenda est cur ignorare 
dicatur. Apostolus super Salvatore scribit: zz guo sunt 

1 i.e. the last day but one. 


136 Dissertations. 


omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditt. Sunt 
ergo omnes thesauri in Christo sapientiae et scientiae, 
sed absconditi sunt. Quare absconditi sunt? Post 
resurrectionem interrogatus ab apostolis de die mani- 
festius respondit: mon est vestrum scire tempora vel 
momenta quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Quando 
dicit 202 est vestrum scire ostendit quod ipse sciat, sed 
non expediat nosse apostolis, ut semper incerti de 
adventu iudicis sic quotidie vivant quasi die alia 
iudicandi sunt. Denique et consequens evangelii sermo 
idipsum cogit intelligi, dicens quoque Patrem solum 
nosse, in Patre comprehendit et Filium, omnis enim 
pater filii nomen est.’ 


This passage is an excellent instance of the way in 
which @ friorz reasoning was allowed to override real 
exegesis. 

St. AUGUSTINE'S line may be illustrated by de Trim. 
i, 12. 23, on St. Mark xiii. 32: ‘hoc enim nescit quod 
nescientes facit?, id est, quod non ita sciebat ut tunc 
discipulis indicaret ; sicut dictum est ad Abraham, zune 
cognovt quod times Deum, id est, nunc feci ut cogno- 
sceres. Cf. Euarr.in Ps.vi.1 ‘ita dicatur nescire Filius 
hunc diem, non quod nesciat, sed quod nescire faciat eos, 
quibus hoc non.expedit..scire, id) est, non cis hoe 
ostendat.’ 

In regard to St. Luke ii. 52 St. Augustine seems 
to hesitate (de div. quaest. lxxxiit, qu. 75. 2°), but to incline 
to the position that ‘ pietas’ would not admit of a real 
increase of knowledge in the ‘homo dominicus,’ and so 
to ascribe it to His body the Church”. This, however, 


1 i.e. ‘that He does not know which He makes others not to know.’ 
* An interpretation also to be found in Pseudo-Hieronymus, Breviartum 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 137 


is only touched upon allusively. In de pecc. merit. et 
remiss. ii. 48 he speaks quite clearly against the attri- 
bution to the infant Christ of an infant’s ignorance: 


‘Quam plane ignorantiam nullo modo crediderim 
fuisse in infante illo, in quo Verbum caro factum est ut 
habitaret in nobis; nec illam ipsius animi infirmitatem 
in Christo parvulo fuerim suspicatus quam videmus in 
parvulis: Per hanc enim etiam cum motibus irrationa- 
bilibus perturbantur nulla ratione, nullo imperio; sed 
dolore aliquando vel doloris terrore cohibentur; ut 
omnino videas illius inobedientiae filios.’ 


Here however St. Augustine plainly passes from 
mere ignorance to what is in the germ a sinful 
impatience. In de Trin. iv. 3. 6, like Gregory Nazianzen, 
Hilary, and others, he interprets the cry ‘My God, My 
God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ as the cry of the 
‘old Adam’ in the redeemed, expressed by Christ as 
Head of the body: ‘interioris enim hominis nostri 
sacramento data est illa vox pertinens ad mortem 
animae nostrae significandam.’ 

An account of Leporius will be found in the Dic¢. of 
Christian Biography. His retractation, or Lzbellus 
E-mendationis, is, so far as touches our present 
question, as follows (L201. Max. Vett. Patr. vii. p. 3): 


‘Ut autem et hinc nihil cuiquam in suspicione dere- 
linquam, tunc dixi, immo ad obiecta respondi, Dominum 
nostrum Jesum Christum secundum hominem ignorare. 


tn Psalm. xv. 7 (Vallars. vii. app. p. 34) Benedicam dominum qui tri- 
but mihe tntellectum—‘ vox capitis cum membris,’ i.e. the expressions 
attributing human conditions of knowledge to our Lord are true of Him, 
taken as including His mystical body. 


138 Dissertations. 


Sed nunc non solum dicere non praesumo, verum etiam 
priorem anathematizo prolatam in hac parte sententiam; 
quia dici non licet etiam secundum hominem ignorasse 
Dominum prophetarum.’ 


St. Augustine, with other African bishops, signed 
this retractation as an evidence of its genuineness, and 
sent Leporius back to Gaul with a warm letter of 
recommendation. See Aug. £/. 219. 


§ 5. 
The Apollinarian controversy. 


It might have been supposed that the controversy on 
the question raised by Apollinarius of Laodicea would 
have counteracted the tendency just described, by empha- 
sizing the complete rational and spiritual humanity of 
Christ. In fact, however, its effect in this way was not 
as great as might have been anticipated. 

There is indeed no evidence of a divine providence 
watching over the fortunes of the Church more 
marked than that which is to be found in the decisive 
and reiterated refusals of the Church to admit any 
opinion to be Christian which explained away the 
reality, or the natural and spiritual completeness, of 
our Lord’s manhood. ‘The divine providence is in this 
especially manifest because current theological opinion 
in its zeal against anything which seemed to imperil our 
Lord's Godhead was continually running the risk of 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 139 


onesidedness!. There was no equally strong zeal in 
regard to the manhood or the verity of the human 
picture in the Gospels. This is made evident by the 
meagreness of the Catholic literature directed against 
Apollinarius as compared to that directed against Arius. 
For in the nature of the case there is no justification 
for this. Men were quite as liable to be misled in one 
direction as in the other. Apollinarius’ doctrine was 
markedly interesting and developed with the highest 
ability. And if Churchmen had been at all deeply 
occupied in the picture of Christ presented in the 
Gospels, they would have found there a wealth of 
argument with which to confront the new teaching. The 
meagreness of the literature against Apollinarius is due, 
then, at least in some measure, to lack of strong interest 
in the subject. Athanasius indeed never loses his 
theological balance and impartiality. The small part 
of his writings which is directed against Apollinarian 
views shows him presenting as firm a front on this side 
as on the other*. But besides Athanasius the chief 
opponent of Apollinarius is Gregory of Nyssa. And 
we feel how small a part of his interest and intellectual 
power was really given to the task of vindicating the 


1 Thus Apollinarius himself and Marcellus of Ancyra were ‘ extreme 
Athanasians’; see also just below as to Gregory of Nyssa. On Hilary of 
Poitiers see above, § 4. 

2 See Athan. coz. Afoll. i. 16-18, on the verity of our Lord’s human soul. 
The strongest passage is one in which he maintains the voluntary but real 
and natural ‘ trouble’ in our Lord’s mind (c. 16) 5:d TovTo yap kal 6 KUpios 
édeyev" vuv 7% Yuxh pou TeTGpakta Kai KaTwduVds EaTLV. TO bE VUV, TOUT EoTLY, 
bre 7OéAnoev. Guws pévTo 70 dv émedeixvuTo’ ov yap TO pr Ov ws mapdy 
wvopacev, ws Boxnoe AEeyopevwy TaV ywwopevav* dice yap Kai dAnOcia Ta 
TAaVTG EVEVETO. 


140 Dissertations. 


completeness of our Lord’s manhood in spirit as well as 
body, and the real existence and action in Him, the 
Word made flesh, of the human mind and spirit. 

Some passages indeed from Gregory's writings are 
valuable in this sense. For example he does contend 
that the reality of our Lord’s assumption of manhood 
involves His real assumption of the human mind 
and spirit. He recognizes among the signs of His 
true spiritual humanity the reality of His temptation, 
of His growth in knowledge, and of His human 
ignorance. Here he is a worthy and even more 
decisive successor of Athanasius. He also points out 
(what is very rarely noticed) that the miracles of our 
Lord are not purely divine acts, but acts which at least 
might have been wrought by a humanity empowered by 
God. Finally, he recognizes at times that the Incarna- 
tion involves on God's side a self-accommodation to alien 
conditions; and he finds in this divine self-humiliation 
the special evidence of the highest sort of power in that 
God can accommodate Himself to conditions such as do 
not belong to His own nature. We can only lament that 
these great thoughts were so little developed and empha- 
sized. The fact is that Gregory's chief interest was in 
the other aspect of the Incarnation—that in which it is 
an exaltation of the manhood in virtue of its union with 
the divine nature. In this direction he constantly runs 
to excess, speaking of the manhood, at least after the 
resurrection, as transubstantiated into the Godhead and 
lost in it. And on the other hand, with reference to the 
period of our Lord’s humiliation, in his zeal to maintain 
the impassibility of the Godhead, his language has 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 141 


frequently a Nestorian sound, as if the passible man were 
a different person from the impassible God. 

The following passages from GREGORY OF NYSSA will 
prove the above statements. 

That a real temptation argues a real human spirit— 
a complete human nature—is asserted in adv. Apoll. 11 
2 if X \ a 3) , 5) , 1 ‘\ \ 
émavayKes KATA THY TOD amocTdAoV anodacw', Tov KaTa 
TAVTA TETELPATMEVOY TOD NuETEpov Blov Kal duodTynTa ywpls 
Gyaptias (6 6% vots duapria odk Eat) Tpds Tacav TUOv oiKEelws 
éxew thy diow. Cf. adv. Eunom. iii. 4, vi. 3 (P. G. xlv. 
PP: 597; 721). 

The reality in our Lord of natural, including mental, 
growth asserted—adv. Apoll. 14 dnolv 6 Aovkas ore 
mpocxomrev “Ingots wAtkia Kal cola kal xdpitr, TEAELOVMEVOS wS 
emt TO petpov TponAGE THs avOpwrdTyTOos, 65@ Badicwv d1a THs 
dioews. And 28 rip be évwbeicay 7H Oia copia Tis capKos 
¢€ na c 5 na f Q >) Xx a 7 
NH@v potpay ex petoyns SeEacbar 1d ayadov THs codtas 
ovk dudpiBddrAopev, TELOdpnEvor TO EXayyeAlw odTwol bredvTe 
(4 2 A Q , e , A , A , e/ 

OTL Ingots Sé€ mpoekoTtTev HAtKia Kat Godia Kal XAPLTL. WOTEP 
€y T® CHpatt 7) KaT OAlyov TpocOnKn Tpopys cuvepyta Tpds 
>p odpart i you mpoobijKn Topi pyta mp 
TO TéAELoV THs pioews TpdEeLow, OUTWS Kal ev TH oxy 7H ent 
\ / fal -. , ’ 5 / a an 
TO TeAELOY THS cTodlas Tpdodos dL AoKHOEWS TOLS pETLOVGL 
mpootTlOeTat. 

The reality of human ignorance in our Lord—adv. 
A poll. 24 mds 8% Kat dyvoel 6 Evoapkos adrod Beds” THY TuEpav 
kal THv Spav exelvnv; TOs O€ OvK emloTAaTaL TOY TOV oUKwL 


5 


, ip BOATS) a eae - Da Ms , E Piaase 
Kalpov 3... Tis 0 Ayvoary, ElmaTw; Tis O AUTOUMEVOS ; TLS O EV 


a ¢ 


2) f V4 Ps ° x oN lal a] \ na 
aunxavia orevoxwmpovpevos ; Tis 0 eyKaTadedetpOar Tapa Tov 


1 Heb. iv. 15. 
2 i.e. the God who, according to an opinion ascribed to Apollinarius, 
was eternally ‘in the flesh,’ and never assumed a true Ausan nature. 


142 Dissertations. 


deod Bonwas!; these things cannot belong to the eternal 
Godhead: GAAa kart dvdyxnv tas eumabels tavtas Kal 
TaTewwoTepas pwvas TE Kal diabécers TO AVOpaTive Tpocpap- 
Tupyoe. *, atpenmTOv TE Kal AwabH Tod Oeod Tiv vow, Kal ev 
TH Kowwvia TOV avOpwrivor TabnpdTwv Siamewernkevalr TvV- 
Ojoerau (i.e. these utterances of humiliation are the real 
expression of properly human experiences undergone by 
the eternal Word, who yet remained unchanged in His 
own essence). 

That our Lord’s miracles might have been done in 
the power of a God-inspired humanity—-adv. Apoll. 28, 
Apollinarius had asked, ‘Who but God is it who works 
with power the things of God?’ To this Gregory 
replies that such a question derogates from the power 
of God and is childish: 76 yap év éfovcla ta tod Oeod 
moveiy Kal avOpdrTav eotiv Hétopevov Oelas duvdpews ofos Hv 
6°HaAelas . . . Bote ovdev tTep AvOpwrov Td ev eEovoia Tov 
Oeot Tovety Te TOV Oavpator ex Oelas dSuvdpews’ AAA 7d 
avtov elvar THY bTEpexovaay SUvapww*. But cf. adv. Eunom. 
v. 5 (p. 705), where the miracles of our Lord are ascribed 
to His Godhead in the more usual way. 

That the special marvel of divine power lies in the 
self-accommodation of the Son of God to the conditions 
alien to His own nature—adv. Eunom. v. 3 (p- 693) 
ovder KaTa THY €avTod dow Kivovpevov ws em Tapaddgm 
Javpdcerar’ adAa boa Tovs Gpovs exBalver THs PioEws, TadTa 
pddicta mavtTwv ev Oavpate yiveta, ... 610 Kal TavTES ob 
Tov Adyov KyptorovTes, Ev TOUTM TO Oadpa Tod pvoTHptov 

1 St: Mark xilit32; x1, tas ccveua: 

2 i.e. ‘he must ascribe.’ 


° i.e. what is superhuman is not the working of the miracles, but the 
being Himself the supreme power. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 143 


Katapnvvovow OT. Oeds ehavepsdn ev capki... OTL 1 Cw 
Oavdrov éyevoato’ Kal TavTa Ta ToLatTa BoGow ot KHpuKes, 
dv Gv tAcovaerar TO Oadpa Tod dia TdV e&w Tis Pioews 
7) Teplov THs dSuvduews EavTod davepdoartos. And v. 5 
(p. 705) kevodrar yap ) Oedrns iva Xwpyty Ty avOpwrivn dice 
yevntar. Cf. Orat. Cat. Mag. 24 mp@rov pev oby TO THY 
Tavrodvvamov mic Tpos TO TaTELVOV THs avOpwroTHTOS KaTa- 
Bijvat ioxtoar mAclova tiv andderki Ths Svvamews EXEL 7 TA 
peydda te Kal brephun TGv Oavpdtwv. TO ev yap péya TL 
kal tw ndov e€epyacOjvar Tapa THs Oelas Suvdpews Kata piow 
mos é€oTL Kal axdAovOov .. .% O&€ pds TameLvdy KaHod0s 
Tenovota tis éote THs Suvapews, ovdev ev Tots Tapa dvow 
K@AVOLELYS. 

Cis gave Apoll. zo In. His’ divine’ nature: Christ 
was inaccessible to weak humanity and incompre- 
hensible by it, but He became such that our perishable 
humanity could possess and endure Him then, dre 
exevwce, KaO@s hynow 6 andoTOAOS, TY Appactoy avTod THs 
Oedtntos ddfay Kal 7H Bpax’TnTe judy ovyKaTeoputkpuver 
(i.e. He narrowed His Godhead by accepting human 
limitation). 

On the other hand, for the transubstantiation of the 
manhood into God, see adv. Afoll. 25, and 42 ad finem. 
The human is swallowed up in the divine as a drop 
of vinegar in the ocean and changed into the divine 
substance; there remains no physical property of body. 
fe is to, this latter passaveithat Hooker refers (2. 2. 
Vv. 53. 2) as consisting of ‘words so plain and direct for 
Eutyches that I stand in doubt they are not his whose 
name they carry. So in adv. Eunom. v. 4, 5 (pp- 697, 
705-6) it is affirmed that Christ was always God, but 


144 Dissertations. 


was not man either before His virgin birth or after 
His ascension. 

For quasi-Nestorian language see especially adv. 
Eunom. v. 5 (p. 700 d, 705—commenting on Acts ii. 36), 
adv. Apoll. 54 ad fin., and Orat. Cat. Mag. He continu- 
ally uses the word cvvddeva, which subsequently became 
typical of Nestorianism to express the relation of the 
humanity to the divinity in Christ. But this quasi- 
Nestorian language does not express the main tendency 
of Gregory’s thought. 


§ 6. 
The Nestorian controversy. 


There was indeed one school of theology in which 
opposition to Apollinarianism was hearty enough, and 
associated with a literal interpretation of the New 
Testament—the school of Antioch, of which the most 
prominent representative is Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
He himself had nothing more at heart than the assertion 
of the real moral freedom and spiritual humanity of 
Christ—His real temptation, His real struggles. Natur- 
ally therefore he was also ready to recognize the reality 
of His limited knowledge as man. He seems, if we may 
believe Leontius of Byzantium, to have gone to a length 
which there is nothing in the Gospels to justify, and to 
have asserted that our Lord in His temptation did not 
know who was tempting Him’. But unhappily, in 


* Leont. Byz. adv. [ncorrupticolas et Nestor, iii. 32 (P. G. 1xxxvi. p. 1373) 
Kal meipaCopevos ov eyivwoKev GoTts ein 6 TELpawy avTOV. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 145 


spite of the great theological reputation in the enjoyment 
of which he lived and died, he was working, as afterwards 
appeared more plainly, on a false line. He was—not 
by a mere careless use of language but deliberately— 
placing a centre of independent personality in the 
humanity of Jesus and distinguishing the man Jesus 
from the eternal Word who in a unique manner indwelt 
him. Nestorius was only following out this line of 
thought when he openly declared that the infant born 
of Mary was not, personally, the Son of God?. 

The Church repudiated, with all haste and emphasis, 
this disastrous, and also intensely unpopular, heresy. 
Christ was personally God. In Him very God, re- 
maining very God, had taken a human nature in its 
completeness; and He operated in the human nature, 
appropriating and making His own the acts and sufferings 
of the manhood from birth to death and through death 
to glory. So had rung out the theology of Athana- 
sius, especially in his later period as represented by 
his letter to Epictetus of Corinth; the note had been 
sounded simultaneously by Hilary in the west, and 
was taken up as by others so with pre-eminent power 
by Cyril of Alexandria, the great opponent of Nes- 
torianism. Here is the verity of the Incarnation at its 
very heart. God, the very God, condescends to take 
a human nature to live and to suffer in it. In Christ 


1 The real Nestorianism of Theodore appears nowhere more clearly 
than in the extracts given by Justinian from his work against Apollinarius. 
He there distinctly denies that the Word was made man, and affirms that 
He assumed the man Jesus. He describes the man Jesus as declaring that 
the Word, as well as the Father, indwells him—Oeds 5é Adyos év Epol 6 TOU 
Oeod povoyerns. See Justin. pest. adv. Theod. in P. G. \xxxvi. pp. 1050-1. 


L 


146 Dissertations. 


Jesus then God is manifesting Himself under human 
conditions. Does this involve a real self-limitation on 
God’s part? Yes, is in some sense the repeated answer 
of both Hilary and Cyril’. Hilary has striking passages 
about the divine ‘self-emptying’ involved in the Incar- 
nation; and Cyril also has strong statements as that the 
very God, in being made man, ‘let Himself down to the 
limit of the self-emptying’ and ‘ suffered the measures 
of the humanity to prevail in His own case *. 

But both Hilary and Cyril refuse to apply the idea 
of the self-emptying so as to admit the reality of 
intellectual growth or limitation of knowledge in the 
incarnate Lord. This is certainly the case with Hilary, 
as has already appeared, and on the whole must be 
allowed in regard to Cyril. He too falls back upon 
a merely ‘economic’ ignorance. This particular ten- 
dency was facilitated by a general tendency, which must 
be admitted to exist in much of Cyril’s writing, to allow 
the apprehension of the real manhood of our Lord to be 
weakened by the emphasis on His Godhead. ‘ Under 
his treatment [of St. John’s Gospel],’ says Dr. West- 
cott’, ‘the divine history seems to be dissolved into 
a docetic drama.’ This is a somewhat startling expres- 
sion of opinion from one who is apt to measure his 
words. But it can hardly be said to exceed the truth. 

The following citations will be found to justify the 
remarks just made: 


? So also of Gregory of Nyssa, see above, § 5. 

* See passages quoted below. One may notice also how Cyril, like most 
fathers, habitually recognizes that ignorance, as much as hunger and thirst, 
belongs to human nature: cf. Thesaur. 22 (P. G. Ixxv. p. 373). 

° Speaker's Comme. St. John, p. xcv. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 147 


HILARY’S doctrine of the self-emptying of the Incar- 
nation is striking, but not easy to grasp. 

(a) He maintains constantly that in becoming incar- 
nate the eternal Son remains what He was before. 


ili. 16 ‘Non amiserat quod erat sed coeperat esse 
quod non erat: non de suo destiterat sed quod nostrum 
est acceperat: profectum ei [i.e. naturae humanae] quod 
accepit eius claritatis expostulat unde non destitit’ (of 
that glory whence He did not withdraw He asks advance 
for that nature which He received, St. John xvii. 5). 

ix. 66 ‘Nec Deus destitit manere qui homo est.’ 

xi. 6“ Neque enim. defecit. ex sese; qurse evacuavit 
imSese, “Lei. V\L0,.x. 00. 


(8) Nevertheless he postulates, though with some 
inconsistency of language, a real self-emptying. Thus 
at one time he declares the Son to have abandoned the 
form of God, meaning by that equality with God: at 
another he denies that He abandoned the form of God 
(in the same sense): at another he affirms the aban- 
donment of the divine form, but identifies this with the 
‘glory’ or divine mode of existence (Zadztus). Generally 
he may be said to affirm an abandonment of the divine 
glory and a retention of the divine nature and power. 


wilt, 45° 2d) susceptionem:) Sse : formae. servilis. per 
obedientiam exinanivit, exinanivit autem se ex forma 
Dei, id est ex eo quod aequalis Deo erat.’ 

xi. 48 ‘In forma enim Dei manens formam servi 
assumpsit * > cf. xi. 7. 

ix. 14 ‘ Evacuatio formae non est abolitio naturae: 
quia qui se evacuat non caret sese.’ 

ix. 51 ‘ Erat [in Christ incarnate] naturae proprietas, 


L 2 


148 Dissertations. 


sed Dei forma iam non erat quia per eius exinanitionem 
servi erat forma suscepta.’ 

ix. 4 ‘Deo itaque proprium fuit contrahere se usque 
ad conceptum et cunas et infantiam nec tamen Dei 
potestate decedere.’ 

Cf. ix. 38 ‘habitus demutatione’; 39 ‘se exinanierat 
de forma gloriae.’ 


(y) He goes so far as to suggest a real offensio of 
the divine unity between the Father and the Son. 


ix. 38 ‘Novitas temporalis, licet maneret in virtute 
naturae, amiserat tamen cum forma Dei naturae Dei secun- 
dum assumptum hominem unitatem. ... Reddenda apud 
se ipsum Patri erat unitas sua, ut naturae suae nativitas 
in se rursum glorificanda resideret ; quia dispensationis 
novitas offensionem unitatis intulerat, et unitas ut per- 
fecta antea fuerat, nulla esse nunc poterat, nisi glorificata 
apud se fuisset carnis assumptio.’ 

ix. 39 ‘Ut in unitate sua maneret ut manserat, elorifi- 
caturus eum apud se Pater erat; quia gloriae suae unitas 
[v.Z. unitatem] per obedientiam dispensationis excesserat.’ 


(6) He conceives this self-emptying as an act of 
supreme self-restraint, and therefore as the fulness of 
power. 


xi. 48 *In forma enim Dei manens formam) Servi 
assumpsit, non demutatus sed se ipsum exinaniens et 
intra se latens et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potesta- 
tem: dum se usque ad formam temperat habitus humani, 
ne potentem immensamque naturam assumptae humili- 
tatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtus 
incircumscripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret eam 
usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corporis obedire. 
Quod autem se ipsum intra se vacuefaciens continuit, 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 149 


detrimentum non attulit potestati, cum intra hanc 
exinanientis se humilitatem virtute tamen omnis ex- 
inanitae intra se usus sit potestatis.’ Cf. xii. 6. 


CYRIL’S doctrine of the xévwo.s and the limits he 
assigns to it will appear in the following citations : 

(a) As to St. Mark xiii. 32, adv. Anthropomorph. 14 
te G. Ixxvi- ‘ppt tor, 1104): 


‘The only-begotten Word of God bore with the man- 
hood all that appertains to it, except sin only. But 
ignorance of the future properly suits the limits of 
humanity. So then, so far as He is thought of as God, 
He knows all that the Father knows; but so far as He 
is also man, He does not cast off even the appearance 
of ignorance because it is suitable to humanity (ov« azo- 
vEleTat TO Kal ayvojoat SoKeiv 1a TO TpeTELY TH avOpwmdTNTL). 
Just as He received bodily sustenance, though He was 
the life and power of all, not despising the limit of 
His self-emptying, and has been recorded to have slept 
and been weary, so also, though He knew all things, He 
does not blush to attribute to Himself the ignorance 
which is suitable to humanity. For everything that 
belongs to humanity became His, except sin only. 
Thus when His disciples would have learnt what was 
above them, He pretends for their profit not to know, 
inasmuch as He is man (cxijaretat ypnoimws 70 pr) €ldévar 
kad’ 0 avOpwros), and He says that not the very angels 
knew, that they may not be grieved at not being 
entrusted with the mystery.’ 


Cf. Thesaurus, assert. 22 (P. G.Ixxv. p. 376) domep odv 
olkovopias Tivos Evexev TO py Eldevar Tod Kettar AdCapos 
” oA \ \ lal ¢ / \ fas ev “\ / \ 
EPATKEV, OUTH KAL TEPL TNS MEPAS KAL TIS Wpas, KdV AEyN A} 


elO€val, xpyoyov TL Kat ayabdov oikovoyeyv TovtTo ToLEt’ oid«_ 


150 Dissertations. 


yup &s beds. Again, p. 377, olxovopet yd tor Xpuoros py 
eldévar A€ywor tiv Spav exelyynv Kat odK GAnOGs ayvoet: and 
cf. his reply to Theodoret’s ‘reprehension’ mentioned 
above, p. 131 (P. G. Ixxvi. p. 416), where he starts with 
the fundamental proposition that as God He knows all, 
but in His manhood only what the indwelling Godhead 
revealed: and the conclusion is that He personally knew 
the day of the end, because He was God, but assumes 
the ignorance of manhood ‘economically.’ Other pas- 
sages are collected by Dr. A. B. Bruce, Humiliation of 
Christ, pp. 366-372. Their drift is unmistakeable. 

(8) As to St. Luke ii. 52, Cyril appears at times to 
recognize in our Lord a reality of human growth in 
knowledge; but when speaking exactly, tends to make it 
only an increased manifestation of an already existing 
knowledge. Cf. Quod unus sit Christus (P. (G, tae 


p22): 


‘For the wise evangelist, when introducing the Word 
made flesh, exhibits Him as economically letting His own 
flesh have its way, so as to go through the laws of its 
own nature (delkvvow adrov olkovoytKds epevta t)) idta 
capkl 1a Tov Tis ldlas divews lévar vouwr). It belongs to 
humanity to advance in stature and wisdom, and, I may 
add, in grace, the understanding in each case keeping 
pace in a way with the measures of the body. The 
understanding of those who are already grown children 
differing from that of infants, and so on. It was not 
impossible or unattainable for Him who was God, 
the Word begotten of the Father, to raise the body 
united to Him to its full height even from its very 
swaddling-clothes and to bring it to full development. 
And in the same way it would have been easy and 


The Consciousness of our Lord. i5e 


practicable for Him to exhibit a marvellous wisdom 
even in the infant. But this would have been akin to 
mere wonder-working, and unsuitable to the conditions 
of the economy. For the mystery was accomplished 
noiselessly. Therefore economically He suffered the 
measures of the humanity to prevail in His own case 
(GAN iv TO xXpHya TEpatoToLias ov paxpav, Kat Tois THs 
oikovoyias Adyots avappootov’ etedeiToO yap aodpynti TO 
Evotypiov. npler 5) ovv olkovoytKOs Tols THs davOpwnd- 


/ >) 3 € Ca.) x a b) 
TNTOS peTpors eh EavT@ TO Kpareir). 


I have left ‘ economy’ and ‘ economically’ untranslated, 
because oikovoyia, starting from meaning the process by 
which God communicates and reveals Himself in such 
a way as to be intelligible to man, passes imperceptibly 
into meaning a process of divine reserve which is in 
fact deception. It does not necessarily carry with it any 
sense of unreality; for Cyril says that the suffering of 
Christ ‘belongs to the economy’ (ro pév maOos Eota THs 
oixovopias, schol. de Incarn. 13, t. xxv. p. 1388). And in 
the above paragraph it might seem to have the nobler 
meaning. But the following passage is more explicit: 


Thesaurus, assert. 28 (t. Ixxvi. p. 428) ‘ A certain law of 
nature does not allow a man to have wisdom to a degrec 
which would be out of correspondence with his bodily 
stature ; but our understanding keeps pace and advances 
in a way with our bodily growth. Now the Word made 
flesh was man as has been written; and He was perfect, 
being the Wisdom and Power of God. And since it was 
necessary in a way that He should accommodate Him- 
self to the custom of our nature (r@ Tis dioews Hyuay Eber 
Tapaxwpely Tws €xpyv), to avoid being thought a portent 
by those who saw Him as man, while His body was 


152 Dissertations. 


eradually growing, therefore He concealed Himself and 
kept daily appearing wiser to those who saw and heard 
Him ... But because He was ever wiser and more 
gracious to those who saw Him, therefore He was said 
to advance, the advance being in fact relative to those 
who admired, rather than to Himself (os evtedOev dq THv 
tov OavpaCovtay mpoxdmTe Ew 7 THY adtod). Cf. p. 429 
Stimep Kal dpyavov ein [Td avOpadmuvov| rhs év adr OedTHTOS, 
Kata Bpaxv mpos THY Expacw avis bia TaV Epywv UTNpETOd?, 
and scholia 13, t. \axve p.11388. 

In another passage, adv. Nestor. t. Ixxvi. p. 154, he 
definitely distinguishes this view from that of a real 
advance postulated by Nestorius. The above quotations 
are mostly to be found in Bruce (¢.¢.), whose discussion 
of the matter is, I think, exhaustive. He also (p. 425) 
points out how Cyril had in view and repudiated (1) an 
idea of the ‘depotentiation’ of God incarnate, such as 
some extreme Lutherans have held, and (2) the attempt 
to distinguish the nature from the personality of the 
Word, and to assert that in the Incarnation the nature 
remained in the glory of God, but not the personality ; 
see adv. Nest. 1. 1, adv. Anthropomorph. 18, t. \xxvi. 
pp. 1108 ff. 

In general one must allow, I think, that there is in 
St. Cyril, side by side with a real apprehension of our 
Lord’s manhood especially in its physical aspects—of 
hunger, thirst, pain, &c.—a tendency to allow its spiritual 
and intellectual reality to be merged in his emphasis on 
the Godhead. He had no sympathy with Apollinarius’ 
formal denial of the human spirit in Jesus, but his 
language is sometimes markedly akin to Apollinarius’ 
language when he speaks of the manhood as simply the 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 153 


instrument or veil, through which the Godhead com- 
municates or discloses itself, and it is remarkable that 
the phrase adopted by Cyril, which afterwards afforded an 
excuse for Monophysitism—the pla dvo.s tod Oe0d Adyov 
cecapkwpevn—is derived from a treatise de [ncarn. Verbi 
Dei, ascribed by Cyril to Athanasius ', but which appears 
in fact to have been written by Apollinarius; see 
Robertson, Achanasius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), 
p. xv. There is no doubt that in the early part of the 
fifth century the more moderate disciples of Apollinarius 
succeeded in disseminating writings of their master 
under the famous names of Athanasius, Julius, and 
Gregory Thaumaturgus. This was disclosed first at 
the Council of Chalcedon, and later, in the early part’ of 
the sixth century, by Leontius of Byzantium, if indeed he 
is the writer of the adversus Fraudes Apollinistarum?. 
The tract from which Cyril derived his famous phrase 
was one of these Apollinarian treatises ascribed to 
Athanasius. The whole matter of Apollinarian propa- 
ganda under assumed names has been the subject of 
recent investigation by C. P. Caspari, Alte und neue 
Quellen sur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Christiania, 
1879); and by Draseke, Afollinarios von Laodicea (Texte 
und Untersuch. vii.3,4). The whole discussion is reviewed 
in the Ch. Quart. Review (Oct. 1893, Apollinarius of 

1 See Dict. of Chr. Biography, i. p. 770. 

2 Loofs ( Zext w. Und. iii. 1, 2), who has recently investigated Leontius of 
Byzantium and his works, thinks that its author was an older contemporary 
of Leontius, i. e. that it was written c. A.D. 512. But the grounds assigned 
for this date are not over-convincing. It may well have been by 
Leontius and written about 531. See the last investigator of the subject, 


P. W. Riigamer (a Roman Catholic), Leonteus von Byzanz (Wiirzburg, 
1894), pp. 14 ff. 


154 Dissertations. 


Laodicea). I must add that Cardinal Newman’s Tract 
(Tracts Theol. and Eccl.) on St. Cyril’s formula, in spite 
of its interest and learning, is really in great part an 
apology for minimizing the meaning of our Lord's 
manhood. 


$7, 
Lhe Monophysite controversy. 


The heresy of Eutyches was in part due to a mis- 
understanding of Cyril's teaching, in part it was a revival 
of a certain still current aspect of Apollinarianism to 
which some of Cyril’s language had been too closely 
akin. Speaking generally, Eutychianism, and the ‘Mono- 
physite’ doctrine which was a modification of it, postu- 
lated, in varying degrees!, a transubstantiation in the 
person of Christ of the manhood into God. As against 
such teaching, the definition of Chalcedon secured 
dogmatically the distinct and permanent reality of 
our Lord’s manhood, and the later decision of the 
third council of Constantinople dogmatically secured the 
presence in Him of a distinct human will and energy, 
linked hypostatically to the divine will and energy, but 
not swallowed up in it. But from the point of view 
of our present inquiry it must be noticed 

(1) that these definitions did not lead to any perma- 

* In varying degrees: because some Monophysites, like the Agnoetae 
or even the Severians, generally recognized the reality of the manhood 
in the ‘composite nature’ of Christ to a very great extent. See the 


excellent account of the Severians in Dorner’s Person of Christ, iv. ii. 
vol. i. pp. 133-143. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. ae 


nent reaction among catholic theologians in favour of 
recognizing the reality of our Lord’s mental growth or 
limitation in knowledge as man: 

(2) that there was no real help given by the orthodox 
thought of the time towards solving the question of the 
relation of the divine and human natures, which the 
dogma of Chalcedon left simply juxtaposited in the 
unity of Christ’s person 1. 

(1) This is best shown by the attitude of the Church 
towards the Agnoetae. This sect—which is also known 
as the ‘Themistians’ from its chief representative 
Themistius—arose among the Monophysites on the 
moderate or Severian wing, i.e. among those who 
maintained the naturally corruptible nature of our Lord’s 
body, about A.D. 540 or somewhat later’. Its charac- 
teristic tenet was the limitation of our Lord’s human 
knowledge, and its adherence to this was based upon 
the natural interpretation of the often-discussed passages 
of the Gospels, such as St. Mark xiii: 32, St. John x1. 34. 
The Monophysite origin of the sect would countenance 
the hypothesis (to which Dr. Liddon adheres *) that they 
affirmed ignorance of our Lord in the only nature which 
Monophysites could consistently recognize in Christ, 
viz. the divine. But men are not always consistent, and 


1 So far, I think, Dorner is right. But not in his criticisms on the 
Chalcedonian formula considered Zer se, 7.¢. pp. 113-119. That was in no 
contradiction to Ephesus and was a most necessary supplement to it. 
Further the function of a dogmatic decision is not to supply the philosophy 
of the subject: see Bampton Lectures, \8g1, p. 110. 

2 Leontius Byz. de Sect’s, v. 6 ‘while Theodosius (the Monophysite 
patriarch of Alexandria) was living at Byzantium as a private person,’ i.e. 
after his banishment from Alexandria, c. 537. 

° Divinity of our Lord, p. 468, quoting Suicer. 


156 Dissertations. 


moreover the Severian Monophysites in their view of 
the ‘composite nature’ of Christ allowed a great deal of 
reality to the humanity. At any rate the evidence does 
not seem to warrant this hypothesis. If the language 
of Eulogius, the patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote 
against the Agnoetae about A.D. 590, is ambiguous}, 
that of the treatise de Sectis, ascribed to Leontius of 
Byzantium, is quite distinct—Aé€yovow ayvoety Td avOpe- 


mivov Tob Xpiotod, nyvder 6 Xpiotos ws dvOpwrds Tov? : and 


1 See just below, p. 158. John of Damascus is also ambiguous in his 
account of Themistius, see de Haer. 85. 

2 de Sectis, x. 3 (cited below). The Greek title of the work is AeovTiou 
axoAaoTiKov BuayTiov axddLa ard pwvns Oeodwpov, Tov HeopiAeatarov aBBa 
Kal dopwratov dirocdpou, k.7.A. That is to say it is a work compiled by 
the Abbot Theodore from the scho/éa of Leontius. Theodore must have 
written after the accession of Eulogius of Alexandria, which he mentions, in 
579, and the scholia were probably compiled about the middle of the 
century. See Loofs, /.c. and Riigamer, /. c. pp. 25 and 30. 

The passage in question is probably due to Leontius (so Riigamer as 
against Loofs); at least the passage in what is apparently Leontius’ earliest 
work (c. 531)—adv. Nestorianos et Eutychiantstes, iii. 32—directed against 
a Nestorian view of Christ's ignorance, is no argument against it. For the 
latter passage is directed against an extreme view of Christ’s ‘ignorance’ 
and one in which ignorance is identified with sin; and is also separated by 
perhaps nearly twenty years from the passage in the de Sectzs. Even in 
the earlier work Leontius is jealous for the verity of our Lord’s manhood, 
especially on its physical side—contending for instance that xara Bpaxd ev 
TH TapOevikh UNTPA TpoeKOTTE VOW KUNTEWS, WS TOLS THY ANNpTLTMEVHY TOU 
Bpépous Tedrciwow (con. Nest. et Eut. ii. p. 1328c). But on this subject 
he seems to have changed his mind, adv. Nestorian. iv. p. 1669, and his 
later view was followed by orthodox divines, who postulated an instan- 
taneous formation of the embryo, e. g. John Damasc. od tais Kata puxpov 
mpodOnkas adnapTiCopevov TOV axXHHaTOS GAN’ bd’ Ev TEdELwOEévTOS (de Fid. 
Orthod. ili. 2). So St. Thomas Aquinas, Szmma, p. ili. qu. 33. art. I. 

It is remarkable that a writer such as Leontius, of whom so much remains 
of great interest, whom Cardinal Mai describes as ‘in theologica scientia 
aevi sui facile princeps,’ and who has been the subject of so much recent 
discussion in Germany, should be all but passed over in silence in the 
Dict. of Chr. Biography. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 157 


the words of Sophronius of Jerusalem are equally dis- 
rimec., “sind likerthese easterns, sO the western, Pope 
Gregory, in his correspondence with Eulogius regards 
the question at issue to be our Lord's ignorance as man. 
This he, with Eulogius, is emphatic in denying. They 
both admit that humanity as such, and therefore Christ’s 
humanity by itself, would be ignorant. But they say 
that in fact, as united to the Godhead in one person, 
its ignorance was removed. If He was ignorant ‘ex 
humanitate,, He was not so ‘in humanitate” If He 
professes ignorance as man He is speaking as Head for 
the members and economically. 

It would appear that this particular matter was never 
specifically considered by any oriental council. But 
the Agnoetae certainly formed a sect of their own and 
were reckoned as heretics, with the special characteristic 
of affirming the limitation of knowledge in Christ. We 
notice however that the orthodox Leontius emphatically 
takes the side of the Agnoetae, and declares, with 
an exaggeration which is no doubt somewhat strange, 
that almost all the fathers held to our Lord’s human 
ignorance. 

The following passages should be examined in this 
connexion : 


LEONTIUS OF BYZANTIUM, de Sects; act. x7 37h. 
Ixxxvi. p. 1261) ‘Now the Agnoetae believe just as 
the Theodosians with this difference, that the Theodo- 
sians deny that the humanity of Christ was ignorant 
and the Agnoetae affirm it. For they say, “ He was in 


1 Epist. Syn. ad Sergium (P. G. \xxxvii.3, p. 3192 d) dyvoetv tov Xprotov 
ov Ka0d Oeds imHpxXev Gidios, GAAG KaOd yéyovey KaTa GAnOELaY avOpwros. 


158 Dissertations. 


all points like us. And if we are ignorant, it is plain 
that He too was ignorant. And He Himself in the 
Gospels says, xo man knoweth the day nor the hiv 
netther the Son, but the Father only. And ag 
where have ye laid Lazarus?” All these utterar 
they say, are signs of ignorance. It is said in reply t 
Christ spoke these things “economically,” to divert t “ 
disciples from learning from Him the hour of the « / 
Observe, they say, after the resurrection, when He 
again asked by them, He no longer says nether the S 
but zone of you. But we? say that we must not be 
exact on these matters (od de?. mavu axpiBoroyeiv 7 pi 
tovrwr). On this principle neither did the Synod * busy 
itself with this sort of opinion (ov6€ 7 adtvodos Tovodro 
évohuTpaypovnoe Odypa), but it must be known that most 
of the Fathers, yes almost all, appear to say that He was 
ignorant. For if He is said to have been of one sub- 
stance with us in all respects, and we are ignorant, it is 
plain that He too was ignorant. And the Scripture says 
about Him, He advanced in stature and wisdom; that is 
plainly, learning what He was ignorant of.’ Cf. Act. v. 6. 


EULOGIUS, the patriarch of Alexandria, is quoted by 
Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 230 (P. G. ciii. pp. 1080 ff.), as 
writing against the Agnoetae to the following effect. 
He denies that Christ was ignorant either in His 
manhood or (still more) in His Godhead. He gives 
‘explanations’ of the texts cited for the opposite view. 
Christ may have been speaking economically ; or, again, 
nothing hinders us from interpreting His words kar’ 
avagopar, i.e. in such a way as to refer them back from 
the Head who spoke them to the members of the body 


Acts 1.7 ‘it is not for you, acc, 2 i, e. Leontius. 
3 The reference appears to be to Chalcedon. 


PS ae 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 159 


for whom He spoke. He cried out as deserted in our 
naine. So He may have professed ignorance in our 

“Ne. ‘No man can, without recklessness, ascribe real 

srance to Him either in His Godhead or in His man- 
id (ovre yap Kata Ti OedtynTa ovTE KaTa THY dvOpwroTHTa 
t » dyvoray déyew én adtod Opdcovs éemiopadods hArcvOe- 
at). We may indeed ascribe ignorance ideally to 
gist’s humanity, gwa humanity considered by itself 
nich it was not), like Gregory the theologian’. He 

‘ls, 

“Tf some of the fathers admitted the asserted ignorance 
in the manhood of our Saviour, they did not advance 
this as a positive opinion, but with a view to warding 
off the madness of the Arians; for as the Arians ascribed 
the human affections to the Godhead, they thought 
igen better Expedicnt to refer them to the manhood 
than to allow them to divert them to the Godhead. 
Not but what if any one were to say that they too spoke 
anaphorically |i.e. of Christ for ws], he will be accepting 
the safer explanation (ef kat tues TOy TatTépwy THY dyvovay 
emt THs KaTa TOY GaTHpa TopEedeEavto avOpwTOTHTOS, OVX wS 
Odypa TovTO Tponveykav, GAAG THY TGV ’Apetavdy paviay 
avtipepoperol, ol Kal TA avOpOTLVAa TavTa eal THY OEedTHTA TOD 
fovoyevovs peTedepov, ws Av KTiopa TOV AKTLaTOVY AOyoV TOD 
deod Tapacticwo.v, olkovoptKoTtepovy edoKiacay emt THs 
avOpwrdtnTos Tatra pépew 7) Tapaywpety exeivous peOeAKewy 
Tatra Kata THs OedtynTos. «i 5€ kata avadopay Kakelvous doin 
Tadra Tis elev, TOV evaeBEaTEpoy Adyov amode€eTuL).’ 


GREGORY THE GREAT, £7ist. x. 39 (ad Eulogium,Patr. 


Lat, Ixxvit: p.1097), says that the text St. Mark xin 92 


‘Is most certainly to, be referred. to the Son, not ‘as 


1 See passage quoted, p. 126. 


160 Dissertations. 


He is Head, but as to His body which we are (non ad 
eundem Filium iuxta hoc quod caput est, sed iuxta 
corpus eius quod sumus nos, est certissime referendum). 
He adds that Christ ‘in natura quidem humanitatis novit 
diem et horam iudicii, sed tamen hunc non ex natura 
humanitatis novit: quod ergo in ipsa novit, non ex ipsa 
novit, quia Deus homo factus diem et horam iudicii per 
deitatis suae potentiam novit.’ 


Like Theodoret’s in earlier days, the protest of Leon- 
tius against explaining away our Lord’s words is isolated. 
Thus, the great Greek schoolman, John of Damascus, 
who in the eighth century formulated the theology of 
the Greeks, repudiates as Nestorian any assertion of 
real increase in our Lord’s knowledge as man, or real 
limitation in His knowledge of the future. 


JOHN DAMASCENE, de fide Orthod. iti. 12-23: His 
human nature by its own essence does not possess 
the knowledge of the future ; ‘ but the soul of the Lord, 
because of its unity with the person of God the Word 
and its hypostatic identity, was enriched, as I said, as 
with the other divine miracles, so with the knowledge of 
the future (éva rv mpos abrov Tov Oedv Adyov Evwow Kai THY 
UTOOTATLKIVY TAVTOTHTA KaTEeTAOUTHOEV, OS ENV, META TOV 
AoiTGv OcoonperGv Kal THY TOV peAdCVTWY yvdowr). 


He goes on to determine that it is Nestorian to call 
Christ by the name ‘ servant (d00A0s) of the Lord', and 


1 St. Thomas (Summa, p. iii. qu. 20. art. 1) allows the expression. So 
Petavius (de Zncarn. vii. 7-9) and others, Other western theologians 
have agreed more or less decisively with John of Damascus that our Lord, 
as man, is not to be called servus, chiefly because the expression was 
insisted upon by the Adoptionists and repudiated by Pope Hadrian I and 
other opponents of this heresy : see de Lugo, de AZyst. Zucarn. xxviii. 2. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 161 


that in spite of the frequent use of the similar phrase 
mats kuptov in the Acts of the Apostles, of which he takes 
no notice ; and Nestorian, again, to attribute real intellec- 
tual growth to our Lord in His manhood. 


‘He is said to advance in wisdom and stature and 
grace, because He grows in fact in stature, and through 
His growth in stature, brings out into exhibition the 
wisdom which already existed in Him.... But those 
who say that He grew in wisdom and grace, as (really) 
receiving increase in these, deny (in fact) that the flesh 
was united to the Word from the first moment of its 
existence, nor do they allow the union to be hypostatic, 
but assent to Nestorius,. . . For if the flesh from the 
first moment of its existence was united to the Word 
of God, or rather subsisted in Him, and possessed hypo- 
static identity with Him, how could it have been other- 
wise than perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace? 
(xpoxdnrew 6& A€yetat copia Kal HAtKia Kal XapiTL, TH eV 
Hrckia avéwv, dia 5€ THs adéijoews Tis AtKias Ti evuTdp- 
xoveay ait coplar eis pavépwow aywyv .. . ot 5€ TpoKoTTELW 
avrov héyovtes copia kal xapite ws TpocOHKnY TovTwY bEXO- 
pevov ovk e€ akpas tmdpkews THs capKds yeyevijoOar THY 
Evwow A€yovaly, ovde THY KAP tmdcTacLY Evwow TpETBEvovOL, 
Neoropio S€ TO pataidppovi TELOOmevor, oXETLKHY EVOoLW 
kal WuAny Evwow Tepatevovta’ ef yap adynOds 7Vvd0y TH Oeod 
Adyw 7 capE &€ axpas trapews waddov be ev adto imnp€e Kal 
THY UTOTTATLKY EcXE TAVTOTHTA, TAS ov TEAEiws KaTETAOUTHTE 
macav codiay kal xapwy ;)’ 


Here is abstract reasoning, as so often in theology 
and philosophy, winning its triumph over facts. In the 
west the Agnoetic view was revived by the Nestorianizing 
Adoptionists, and treated therefore, in the west as in 
the east, as simply a fragment of Nestorianism. 

M 


162 Dissertations. 


AGOBARD, bishop of Lyons, records! how Felix of 
Urgel, the Adoptionist leader, ‘ began to teach certain 
people to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was, accord- 
ing to the flesh, truly ignorant of where Lazarus lay and 
of the day of judgement and of the subject of the con- 
versation of the two disciples (on the road to Emmaus), 


&c. When I heard this,’ he adds, 


‘T approached him in the presence of those whom he 
was seeking to convince and asked him whether this was 
really his opinion. And when he sought to establish his 
view I denounced him and expressed abhorrence of his 
corrupt teaching and I showed the others, as best I could, 
how anxiously they should repudiate such ideas, and 
in what sense those passages of Scripture ought to be 
understood: and I caused passages chosen from the 
holy fathers to be read to Felix himself which con- 
tradicted his blasphemies. And when they had been 
read, he promised to apply himself with all diligence to 
his own correction.’ 


(2) The definition of Chalcedon affirmed the juxta- 
position of the divine and human natures in Christ 
each with its separate and distinct operation, but con- 
tributed nothing positive towards the solution of the 
question: how is this duality of natures and operations 
related to the unity of the person? How, for example, 
did the one person Christ, being God, exercise a human 
consciousness, involving as it does human limitations ? 
The tendency was to regard the divine and human 
natures simply as placed side by side; to speak of Christ 


* See Agobard adv. Felicem Urgel. c. 5, and the note in Patr, Lat. 
Civ. p. 37. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 163 


as acting now in the one and now in the other—or, more 
specifically, to attribute the powerful works and words 
of the incarnate person to His Godhead and His suf- 
ferings and ‘humble’ sayings to His manhood. The 
following is a typical passage from the great Tome 
ol eo" : 


‘ The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human 
nature: the birth from a virgin is an indication of 
divine power”. The infancy of the babe is exhibited 
by the lowliness of the cradle: the greatness of the 
Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom 
Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its 
beginnings; but He whom the Magi rejoice to adore 
upon their knees is Lord of all.... ‘To hunger; te 
thirst, to be weary, and to sleep is evidently human. 
But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and to 
give to the Samaritan woman living water, of which 
whoso drinketh is secure from further thirst, to walk 
on the surface of the sea with feet not sinking, and to 
allay the swelling waves by rebuking the tempest— 
this without doubt is divine. As then (to omit not 
a little), it belongs not to the same nature to weep 
for a dead friend with the sensation of compassion, and 


* It should be noted that the dogmatic authority of a letter approved by 
a Council as a whole is not identical with the dogmatic authority of the 
actual formula decreed by the Council; e. g. the letters of St. Cyril are not 
dogmas in the sense in which it is a dogma that the term ¢heofocus is 
rightly applied to the Blessed Virgin. The letters were approved as 
embodying the truth which the Council affirmed. Thus again St. Leo’s tome 
was accepted at Chalcedon as embodying the truth of the permanence and 
distinct reality of Christ's human nature in the Godhead which assumed it. 
But all the phrases and passages in it are no more of dogmatic authority 
than the reading of 1 John iv. 3 gud solvit Jesum (3 Ava Tov “Inaovr) 
adopted in the tome (c. 5). 

? i.e. an indication that Christ, the child, was God. 


M 2 


164 Dissertations. 


to raise the same friend to life again at the authority 
of a word; ... or to hang upon the cross and to make 
all the elements tremble, turning daylight into night ; 
or to be pierced with nails, and to open the gates of 
paradise to the faith of the thief; so it belongs not to 
the same nature to say J and the Father are one, and to 
say the Father is greater than I' 


In his notes on this passage Dr. Bright? quotes some 
parallels (which, in fact, abound), e.g. St. Athanasius, adv. 
Arian. iii. 32 ‘In the case of Lazarus He uttered a human 
voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus 
from the dead.’ And St. Gregory Nazianzen, ‘ Orthodox 
writers clearly make a distinction between the things 
which belong to Christ—they assign to what is human 
the facts that He was born, was tempted, hungered, 
thirsted, was weary, and slept; and they set down to 
the Godhead the facts that He was glorified by angels, 
that He overcame the tempter and fed the people in 
the wilderness and walked on the surface of the sea.’ 
He quotes further the formula of reunion between 
St. Cyril and the Easterns, ending with the words 
‘We know that theologians have treated some of 
the expressions concerning our Lord as common, as 
referring to one person, and have distinguished others as 
referring to two natures, and have taught us to refer to 
Christ's Godhead those which are appropriate to deity 
(Jeompereis) and to the manhood those which imply 


' Ep. ad Flav.c. 4, This is a working out in example of the general 
principle: ‘Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium 
est; verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis 
est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit iniuriis.’ 

* St. Leo on the Incarnation (Masters, 1886) pp. 230 ff. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 165 


humiliation, and he proves that this practice was 
endorsed by St. Cyril. 

Now in regard to this tendency, to distribute to the 
two natures the words and acts of Christ, we may 
remark that up to a certain point it must be accepted 
by all who believe in Christ’s Godhead. Thus ‘I and 
my Father are one thing’ (St. John x. 30) is pia 
Jeompenés. It could only be spoken by one who, how- 
ever truly incarnate, was Himself God. St. John viii. 40 
‘Me, a man who hath told you the truth which I have 
heard from God, is av@pwromperes. It could only be 
spoken by one who, whatever else he was, was really 
man. But beyond the rare words of our Lord about 
His own essential being, such as the one just cited or 
St. Matthew xi. 27 ‘No one knoweth the Father save 
the Son’—beyond such words and the accompanying 
divine claim on men which such words are necessary 
to interpret and justify, there is very little recorded in 
our Lord’s life—may I say nothing ?—which belongs to 
the divine nature fer se and not rather to the divine 
nature acting under conditions of manhood. He had 
come to reveal God and to make His claim felt not as 
a messenger but as the Son. For this purpose He spoke 
as what He was, the Son. But He came to reveal God 
and make His claim felt, under conditions and limita- 
tions of manhood, and His powerful works, no less than 
His humiliations, are in the Gospels attributed to His 
manhood. Thus His miracles in general, and in parti- 
cular the raising of Lazarus, are attributed by our Lord 
to the Father, as answering His own prayer, and to the 
Holy Spirit as ‘the finger of God, and St. Luke 


166 Dissertations. 


describes His miracles generally as the result of ‘the 
power of the Lord’ present with Him’, zs ts a point 
on which—it must be emphatically said—accurate exegesis 
renders impossible to us the phraseology of the Fathers 
exactly as it stands. So Dr. Westcott remarks ‘It is 
unscriptural, though the practice is supported by strong 
patristic authority, to regard the Lord during His historic 
life, as acting now by His human and now by His divine 
nature only. The two natures were inseparably combined 
in the unity of His person. In all things He acts per- 
sonally ; and, as far as it is revealed to us, His greatest 
works during His earthly life are wrought by the help 
of the Father through the energy of a humanity 
enabled to do all things in fellowship with God (comp. 
Jone si.4i'f) 2. 


§ 8. 
Mediaeval and scholastic theology. 


By the time of Augustine in the west, and by the time 
of John of Damascus at least in the east, the theological 
determination against the admission of a real growth in 
our Lord’s human knowledge or a real ignorance in His 
human condition, such as the Gospel documents describe, 
must be regarded as fixed®. I must however indicate 


' St. John xi. 41, St. Matt. xii. 28, St. Luke v. 17; and see above, p. 80. 
* Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 66. 


* Apparent exceptions do not on examination seem to hold, e.g. St. 
dJernard, commenting on Maik xiii. 32 (de Grad. Hum. ce. 3, 10), seeks to 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 167 


a certain greater definiteness which was given to the 
denial. In the earlier mediaeval period writers speak of 
Christ in general terms as possessing even in His human 
soul the divine omniscience. Thus Fulgentius in the sixth 
century asserts that Christ, in virtue of the hypostatic 
union, certainly had in His human soul the full know- 
ledge of the Godhead: He knows as man all that He 
knows as God, though not in the same manner; for as 
God He knows naturally, as man He knows in such 
a way as still to remain human’. And Alcuin (c. 790) 
asserts that ‘the soul of Christ may not be held to have 
lacked in any respect the full knowledge of the Godhead, 
inasmuch as it formed one person with the Word 2.’ 
This however, as Cassiodorus pointed out 3, was clearly 


avoid imputing mendacity to Christ by admitting a real ignorance of the 
day and hour in respect of Azs human experience: ‘etsi suae divinitatis 
intuitu, aeque omnia praeterita scilicet praesentia atque futura perlustrando, 
diem quoque illum palam habebat, non tamen ullis carnis suae sensibus 
experiendo agnoverat.’ But when commenting on Luke il. 52 (hom. super 
Missus est ii. 10), he denies to our Lord, because He was God, all real 
growth as in human knowledge: ‘non secundum quod erat, sed secundum 
quod apparebat intelligendum est.... constat ergo quia semper Iesus virilem 
animum habuit, etsi semper in corpore vir non apparuit.’ Ch. 9: ‘ vir [i.e. 
a grown man] igitur erat Iesusnecdum etiam natus, sed sapientia non aetate, 
animi vigore non viribus corporis, maturitate sensuum non corpulentia 
membrorum ; neque enim minus fuit sapientia lesus conceptus quam natus, 
parvus quam magnus.’ All that he would admit then of ignorance of the 
day and hour is that He had not realized it in terms of human sensibility ; 
or (like Gregory) that ignorant ex humanitate, He knew 72 humanttate. 

1 Fulg. ad Ferrand. Ep. xiv. 26-32 (£. L. Ixv. p. 420) ‘novit anima 
Christi quantum illa [deitas] sed non sicut illa.’ On the other hand, in the 
ad Trasimund. i. 8 (p. 231) he seems to admit a real grow/¢h in the know- 
ledge of our Lord’s human soul, according to Luke ii. 52. 

2 de Fide S. Trin. ii. 11, 12 (P. L. ci. p. 31) ‘non aestimandum est 
animae Christi in aliquo plenam divinitatis deesse notitiam, cuius una est 
persona cum Verbo.’ He goes on to explain that Christ said that He did 
not know what He causes others not to know (as Augustine). 

8 Cassiod. 72 Psalm. cxxxvilil. 5 (P. L. |xx. p. 985, quoted by Peter 


168 Dissertations. 


to ignore the truth that the human faculty essentially 
falls short of the divine. Thus Peter Lombard decides! 
that while Christ’s human soul ‘knew all things that 
God knows,’ it did not apprehend them so clearly and 
perspicuously as God. 

Later, again, St. Thomas Aquinas is found carrying 
definition further, and laying it down that Christ pos- 
sessed both divine and human knowledge; and further, 
the human soul of Christ possessed knowledge of three 
kinds: 

(i) sctentia beata, i.e. the perfect human participation 
in the beatific vision, or the divine light by which Christ 
as man knew things as they exist in the eternal Word ; 

(ii) sctentia indita vel infusa, by which Christ possessed 
the perfect knowledge of things as they are relatively to 
mankind ; 

(iii) sczentia acguisita, the knowledge of things derived 
from experience. On this subject Aquinas professes 
that he has changed his opinion, and decides that Christ, 
though he already ad znztio possessed perfect knowledge 
in His human soul by sczentia infusa without reference to 
experience, also acquired that very same knowledge by 
sensitive experience*. This latter point remained in con- 
troversy between Thomists and Scotists, but it is purely 


Lombard) ‘ Veritas humanae conditionis ostenditur, quia assumptus homo 
divinae substantiae non potest adaequari vel in scientia vel in alio.’ There- 
fore Christ in the person of ae Psalmist cries ‘ Mirabilis facta est scientia 
(ua ex me et non potero ad eam.’ 

' Petr. Lomb. Senfent. iii. dist. 14. The opposite of Peter Lombard’s 
proposition was condemned at Basle, Sess. xxii. ‘anima Christi videt Deum 
tam clare et intense quantum clare et intense Deus videt se ipsum.’ 

* See Summa, p. iii. qu. ix. ff. We are inclined to ask with an 


objector mentioned by de Lugo ‘quid ergo multiplicandae sunt tot 
scientiae in Christo circa eadem obiecta ?’ 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 169 


academic. The subject is pursued with an infinite 
intricacy in later scholastics such as Suarez or de Lugo. 
But in the result it is affirmed in the strongest way and 
with complete unanimity that Christ’s human soul was 
from the first moment of its creation what is commonly 
meant by omniscient, so that no place is left in it for faith 
or hope', and the distinction of the divine and human 
consciousnesses is safeguarded only by metaphysical 
refinements: as by the affirmation that Christ knew in 
His human soul at the first instant of its creation and 
at every moment all reality or existence of every kind, 
past, present and future, with all its latent possibilities, 
but not the abstract possibilities of existence which He 
knew only as God ”®. 

It must however be noticed (1) that there is a general 
sense of doubt in all the scholastic literature as to how 
much of all this ratiocination is de fide; though Petavius 
decides that the opinion of those who recognize actual 
limitation of knowledge in the human soul of Christ, 
‘though formerly it received the countenance of some 
men of highest eminence, was afterwards marked as 
a heresy °.’ 

(2) that many of the scholastic writers, such as de Lugo, 

1 Summa, Pp. lil. qu. vii. art. 3, 4. 

2 St. Thomas, /. c. qu. x. art. 2. de Lugo, de Myst. Incarn. disp. xix. 
1. Cf. Petavius, de Zucarn. xi. 3. § 6 ‘ The soul of Christ knew all things 
that are, or ever will be, or ever have been, but not what are only in Zosse 
not in fact.’ 

3 de Incarn. xi. 1. § 15. Among recent Roman Catholic writers, 
Dr. Hermann Schell, Xatholisch Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1892), shows a 
disposition to criticize the scholastic determinations, and to assert the 
reality of the growth and limitations of our Lord’s consciousness as man. 


But he is, apparently, so hampered by decisions believed to be authoritative 
that in the result his position is hardly intelligible. 


170 Dissertations. 


profess to be deciding only what was true as a matter of 
fact about our Lord: it being admitted for instance that 
in abstract possibility the human mind of Christ might 
even have contracted actual error. This admission of 
the scholastics is valuable for us who feel that what we 
have gained from the more exact study of the Gospels 
is a conviction different from theirs of what was true 
in fact, so far as concerns the limitation of our Lord’s 
human knowledge. This changed conviction of what 
was true in fact leads us to welcome their abstract 
admissions as to what might have been true without 
overthrowing the principle of the Incarnation’. 

By way of comment on these scholastic conclusions, 
there are two points to which it is worth while calling 
attention. 

1. The earlier mediaeval and scholastic method appears 
to put the dogmas of the Church in a wrong place. The 
dogmas are primarily intended as limits of ecclesiastical 
thought rather than as its premises: they are the hedge 
rather than the pasture-ground: they block us off from 
lines of error tather .than,; edify us: in dhe tout ay 
them we are warned that Christ is no inferior being but 
very God; and that He became at His Incarnation 
completely man, not in body only but in mind and 
spirit; and that remaining the same one and divine 
person He yet subsists henceforth in two distinct 


' de Lugo, de Myst. /ncarn, disp. xxi. 3. The inquiry is Az [Christ] 
cognitio fuerit vel potuerit esse falsa? The answer is to fuerzt, no; to 
poluerit esse, yes; according to the communis and verior opinion. Such 
fallibility, it is argued, need not have interfered with His teaching office ; 
might have been allowed by the divine nature, &c. 


* Ihave tried to express the point also at somewhat greater length, in 
B. L. pp. 106, 108. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 171 


natures. But thus warned off from cardinal errors, we 
are sent back to the New Testament, especially to the 
Gospels, to edify ourselves in the positive conception of 
what the Incarnation really meant. To Irenaeus, to 
Origen, to Athanasius, the New Testament is the real 
pasture-ground of the soul, and the function of the Church 
is conceived to be to keep men to it. But after a time 
there comesa change. The dogmas are used as the posi- 
tive premises of thought. The truth about Christ’s person 
is formed deductively and logically from the dogmas 
—whether decrees of councils or popes, or sayings of 
ereat fathers which are ranked as authoritative—and 
the figure in the Gospels grows dim in the background. 
Particular texts from the Gospels which seem contrary 
to current ecclesiastical teaching are quoted and re- 
quoted, but though, taken together, they might have 
availed to restore a more historical image of the divine 
person incarnate, in fact they are taken one by one and 
explained away with an ingenuity which excites in 
equal degrees our admiration of the logical skill of the 
disputant and our sense of the lamentably low ebb at 
which the true and continuous interpretation of the 
Gospel documents obviously lies. 

2. The view of the Incarnation current in the Middle 
Ages, which, as has been said, tended to minimize the 
real apprehension of our Lord’s manhood, had its roots 
not only in a one-sided zeal for the Godhead of jesus, 
but also in a certain metaphysical conception of God. 

What I must call the biblical idea of the Incarnation 
seems to postulate that we should conceive of God as 
accommodating Himself to the conditions of human life 


172 Dissertations. 


in order to its development and recovery. God, the 
Son of God, must be conceived to exist not only 
according to His own natural mode of being, but also 
really and personally under the limitations of manhood. 
From this point of view the Incarnation might seem 
to be the supreme and intensified example of that 
general divine sympathy, by which God lives not only 
in His own life but also in the life of His creatures, 
and (in a sense) might fall in with a general doctrine 
of the divine immanence. Such an idea of divine 
sympathy and love is to be found in Christian theology 
even where we should least expect it, as in the Pseudo- 
Dionysius! where he describes God as carried out of 
Himself by His love for His creatures, and it is akin 
to Old Testament language about God. For in the Old 
Testament, if God is represented as wholly and person- 
ally distinct from His creatures, yet He is constantly 
represented also as following along with the fortunes of 
His people, collectively and individually, with an active 
and vigorous sympathy; or in other words He is con- 
ceived of morally rather than metaphysically. 


* de Div. Nom. iv. 13 (P. G.iii. p. 712) €orw Kat éxoratikds 6 Oetos Epws, 
ove é@v éavTay eivae Tos Epactds, GAAA TaV Epwmevav ...TOAUNTEoV Be 
kal TovTo bmép GAnOecias eimeiy Ste Kal adTos 6 TavTwY aiTios TSE KAAG@ kal 
ayad@ Trav navtwv épwrt & brepBoAry THs éEpwrikhs ayabdtynTos éfw éEavTod 
yivéra, Tals eis Ta GvTA TavTA Tpovoias Kal oioy dyabdTnTL Kal ayamnoe Kal 
€pw7t Oé€rAyeTAL. 

Cf. the later (fourteenth century) mystic Nicolas Cabasilas de Vita in 
Christo 6 (P. G. cl. p. 644) Kabanep yap TaY avOpwrwy Tods épavras efiornat 
TO pidtpov, bray bmepBadrdAn Kal Kpeizoov yévnra Tov dSegapevwv, Tov icov 
Tpimov 6 mept Tovis dvOpwmous épws Tov Oedv exevwaev. I feel gratitude to 
Dorner (Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 240 ff.), for calling attention 


to this interesting author. But I cannot but think he overstates his doctrine 
in this respect. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 173 


On the other hand Greek philosophy was primarily 
concerned to conceive of God metaphysically. He was 
the One in opposition to the many objects of sense, and 
the Absolute and Unchangeable in opposition to the 
relative and mutable. In particular the divine immuta- 
bility had a meaning assigned to it very different from that 
which belongs to it in the Bible,a meaning determined 
by contrast, not to the changeableness of human purpose, 
but to the very idea of ‘motion’ which, as belonging to 
the material, was also supposed to be of the nature of 
the evil. There is no doubt that this Greek meta- 
physical conception of God influenced Christian theology 
largely and not only for good’. In particular, through 
the medium of Neo-Platonism, it deeply coloured the 
thought of that remarkable and anonymous author who, 
writing about A.D. 500, passed himself off, probably 
without any intention to deceive, as Dionysius the 
Mreopagite, the convert of St. Paul. With him the 
metaphysical conceptions of the transcendence, incom- 
prehensibility, absolute unity and immutability of God 
are a master passion?. In his general philosophy the 
result of his zeal for the One is to lead him to ascribe 
to the manifold life of the universe only a precarious 
reality. In his view of the Incarnation it produces at 
least a monophysite tendency. 

Jesus, even by His human name, is regarded as 
imparting illumination according to His super-essential 
Godhead *, or He is spoken of as by His Incarnation 


' See Hatch’s Azbbert Lectures 1888 (Williams & Norgate) pp. 2309 ff. 

2 See esp. de Div. Nom. c. xiii, and cf. Dr. Westcott’s Religzous Thought 
in the West (Macmillan, 1891) pp. 182-5. 

Bde Caz. fier. i. 2. 


174 Dissertations. 


bringing us back into the unity of the divine life’. 
But Dionysius markedly shrinks from asserting a 
really human activity of the Incarnate; and, while 
accepting the real Incarnation as delivered in tradition, 
he is at pains to assert that not only did the Godhead 
suffer no alteration and confusion in this unutterable 
self-humiliation, but also that in respect of His 
humanity Jesus was still supernatural and supersub- 
stantial; He performed human acts in a superhuman 
manner; it is hardly safe to say that he existed 
or acted as man, but He must be described as ex- 
hibiting in our manhood a new mode of ‘theandric’ 
activity ®. On the whole we feel that the humanity 
of Jesus is, in the Areopagite, little but the veil for 
that divine self-disclosure which is at the same time 
a self-concealment*. The Incarnation becomes a partial 
theophany. 

Now the influence of this writer—presumed to be of 
almost apostolic authority—became exceedingly great 
in the west when he first appeared in the translation 
by Scotus Erigena®, Erigena himself was profoundly 


DP Ecel. Fier 3, AN, 20. 

* de Div. Nom. ii. 10. Here however he is quoting Hierotheus. 

° Ep. ad Catum Monach. 4. This word Oeavipixn évépyeca became the 
motto of the Monothelites. Cf. de Div. Nom. ii. g, where Christ’s human 
acts are said to belong to a ‘ supernatural physiology.’ 

* Ep. ad Caium, 3. 

° For his influence on Thomas Aquinas see the remark of his editor, 
Corderius, Ods. xii. (P. G. iii. pp. go ff.), ‘Facile patet,’ he concludes, 
‘angelicum doctorem totam fere doctrinam theologicam ex purissimis 
Dionysii fontibus hausisse, cum vix ulla sit periodus e qua non ipse tanquam 
apis argumentosa theologicum succum extraxerit et in Summam, veluti quod- 
dam alveare, pluribus quaestionibus articulisque, ceu cellulis, theologico 
melle [? melli] servando distinctum, redegerit.’ 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 175 


affected by him!, and he in turn diffused in a later age 
the influence he had received”. Thus early scholastic 
philosophy is largely dominated by a neo-platonic 
rather than Christian idea of the Incarnation,—that 
the incomprehensible God partially manifests Himself 
under a human veil: the manhood is but the tempo- 
rary or permanent robe® of Godhead. In an extreme 
form this idea came to be known as Nihilianism. 

The eternal Son, it was said, became, in becoming 
incarnate, nothing He was not before. The humanity 
is no addition to His person: it is but the robe of 
Godhead, and the robe is no addition to the wearer’s 
person, but simply gives appropriateness to His ap- 
pearance. This view is stated, among others, by Peter 
Lombard *. 


‘Sunt etiam alii qui in incarnatione Verbi non solum 
personam ex naturis compositam negant, verum etiam 
hominem aliquem sive etiam aliquam substantiam ibi 
ex anima et carne compositam vel factam diffitentur. 
Sed sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbi per- 
sonae vel naturae unita esse aiunt, ut non ex illis duo- 
bus vel ex his tribus aliqua natura vel persona fieret 
sive componeretur, sed illis duobus velut indumento 
Verbum Dei vestiretur ut mortalium oculis congruenter 


1 His view of the Incarnation is best seen in de Div. Nat. v.25 27: and 
see further, pp. 240 n. 2, 281. 

? Not to any great extent at once or in his own lifetime. The influence 
of Scotus and Dionysius becomes more apparent in the twelfth century. 

* Apparently the phraseology of the ‘robe’ was first brought into 
prominence in the school of Apollinarius of Laodicea. His moderate 
disciple Jovius spoke of the flesh of Christ as the a7oA7) kal wepiBdrAarov kai 
mpokdAvppa pvotnpiov KpuTTopevou (in Leontius Byz. ?.G. 1xxxvi. pp. 1956 b, 
1960 a). 

* Sentt. lib. iii. dist. 6f. Cf. dist. 10. 


176 Dissertations. 


appareret. . . . Ipsa persona Verbi quae prius erat sine 
indumento, assumptione indumenti non est divisa vel 
mutata, sed una eademque immutata permansit.. Among 
the authorities for this position St. Augustine is quoted, 
commenting on the Latin version of Philippians ii. 7 
habitu inventus est ut homo’. Habitus, Augustine says, 
always means something which is an unessential accident 
or appendage of something else: ‘manifestum est in ea 
re dici habitum quae accidit vel accedit alicui, ita ut eam 
possit etiam non habere.’ But different sorts of Labitus 
may be distinguished according as the accession of the 
habitus produces or does not produce a change in the 
possessor of it, or in the Zaditus itself. The humanity of 
Christ, he decides, belongs to the class of adztus which 
do not change their possessors but are themselves 
changed, as for example is the case with a robe. And 
he continues, ‘ Dews enim filius semetipsum exinanivtt, 
non formam suam mutans, sed formam servi accipiens ... 
verum hominem suscipiendo haditu inventus est ut homo, 
id est habendo hominem inventus est ut homo, non sibi, 
sed eis quibus in homine apparuit.’ 


Peter Lombard does not in this passage decide in 
favour of this view, but in fact he appears to have held 
it as his opinion, without positively asserting it®. This 


' de div, quaest. Ixxxtti, qu. 73. 

* John of Cornwall (c. 1170), Peter Lombard’s pupil and in this respect 
opponent, is explicit on this point See Eulogium ad Alex. iit. in P. L. 
cxcix. pp. 1052-3 ‘Quod vero a magistro Petro Abaelardo hanc opinionem 
suam magister Petrus Lombardus accepit, eo magis suspicatus sum, quia 
librum illum frequenter prae manibus habebat . . . Opinionem suam dixi. 
Quod enim fuerit haec eius opinio certum est. Quod vero non fuerit 
eius assertio haec, ipse testatur in capitulo suo. ... Praeterea, paulo 
antequam electus esset in episcopum parisiensem, mihi et omnibus auditori- 
bus eius qui tunc aderant protestatus est, quod haec non esset assertio sua, 
sed opinio sola quam a magistro acceperat. Haec enim verba subiecit : 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 177 


theory that God in becoming incarnate did not become 
aliquid or nthil factus est quod non fuertt ante is what 
is called Nihilianism, and becoming widely diffused 
created such scandal that it was condemned by Alex- 
ander III in11771. In fact, such a plainly monophysite 
position could not but be condemned, but the ideas 
which prompted it were neither condemned nor dis- 
carded. In spite of the fact that a suspicion of heresy 
attached itself to the phraseology of the vestzs or 
habitus, as applied to the humanity of our Lord, it 
was still employed’; and the metaphysical conception 
of the immutability of God, in a sense different to the 
scriptural, still held ground. The fact was not really 
faced that God in becoming man really submitted 
Himself to the conditions of human life. Just as in the 
theology of nature all the emphasis was (if I may so 
express it)on the fact that nature is in God and little 
on the fact that God is in nature, so in regard to the 


nec unguam Deo volente ertt assertio mea, nist quae fuerit fides catholica. 
Postea vero per quosdam homines loquaces magis quam perspicaces quae 
nec in cubilibus essent audienda usque hodie praedicantur super tecta.’ 

1 The chief theologian of the controversy was John of Cornwall. His 
conclusion (in the Eulogium, c. 20) is that ‘ Christus est aliquis homo et 
utique sanctissimus et beatissimus hominum ; et quod Christus secundum 
humanitatem est aliquid, et utique verus homo animalis, verum corpus, 
natura, substantia, unum totum.’ The Pope (see Mansi, Comcz/. xxi. p. 1081) 
bids the archbishop of Rheims to summon the magzs¢rz of Paris and Rheims 
and neighbouring towns to condemn the proposition ‘ quod Christus non sit 
aliquid secundum quod est homo.’ I do not think it has been noticed that 
there is an apparent connexion between the doctrine of nihilianism in 
reference to Christ and that of transubstantiation in regard to the eucharist. 
This is pointed out in the next dissertation. 

2 See quotations in Landriot, Ze Christ de la Tradition (Paris, 1888) 
i. p. 84 and note I, esp. St. Thom. Aquinas ‘ sicut vestis formatur secundum 


formam vestientis et non mutat vestientem, inde antiqui dixerunt quod vergit 
in accidens.’ 


N 


178 Dissertations. 


Incarnation all the emphasis is on the fact that behind 
the veil of the humanity is God, not on the fact that 
God was really made man. 

It is significant of the same tendency of thought 
that the theological speculation of the time tended 
more and more to deprive of relationship, of movement 
and life, the conception of the divine nature in itself. 
So immutably one was it necessary to conceive the 
Godhead to be, that Peter Lombard denied that the 
divine nature, as distinguished from the divine 
persons, can be described as either ‘generating’ or 
‘generated’ or ‘proceeding.’ Such a doctrine, which 
repudiates a mode of expression familiar in the fathers, 
produced a strenuous protest from Richard of St. Victor! 
with others. He defied its maintainers to produce 
even a single father as authorizing such a denial. The 
challenge was perhaps impossible to meet, but, none 
the less, the fourth Lateran Council in 1215—the same 
which affirmed transubstantiation—defended the Master 
of the Sentences and gave his opinion dogmatic authority ”. 
Anglican writers—such as Bull and Bingham*?—-have 


\ de Trin. vi. 22 (Pf. L. excvi. p. 986) ‘ Procul dubio aihil aliud est 
Patris persona quam substantia ingenita, nihil aliud Filii persona quam 
substantia genita. Sed multi temporibus nostris surrexere qui non audent 
hoc dicere, quin potius, quod multo periculosius est, contra sanctorum 


patrum auctoritatem ...audent negare et omnibus modis conantur refellere, 
nullo modo concedunt quod substantia gignat substantiam ... Afferant, 


si possunt, auctoritatem, non dicam plures sed saltem unam, quae neget 
substantiam gignere substantiam.’ 

* Mansi, Conc7/. xxii. p. 983 ‘ Illa res [divina natura] non est generans 
neque genita nec procedens; sed est Pater qui generat, Filius qui gignitur, et 
Spiritus sanctus qui procedit: ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in 
natura.’ 


* See Bull, Def. Fid. Nic.iv. 1. 9 (Library of Anglo-Cath. Theol ii. p. 568) : 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 179 


treated the decision with little respect, and indeed it 
appears not only highly precarious in itself but also to 
have its origin in a false metaphysical conception of 
unity and immutability. 


§ 9. 
The theology of the Reformation’. 


How the scholastic theology was presenting itself to 
thoughtful minds at the beginning of the sixteenth 
century, we may judge from the attitude towards it of 
Erasmus? and Colet. Erasmus is, of course, violent in 
the expression of his antipathy. But that antipathy 
itself he had in part imbibed from Colet, or at the 
least Colet had confirmed it. He tells us how in the 
course of conversation he had at last extracted from 


he describes Petavius as unable to ‘ whitewash’ this view, which is a piece 
of ‘scholastic tr.fling.” And Bingham’s Sermon on the Trinity (Works, 
x. 377, Oxford, 1855), who quotes the fathers more or less at length. 

1 In this section I have depended much upon Dorner (Doctrine of the 
Person of Christ) and Bruce (7he Humiliation of Christ) for the history 
of opinion. 

* Nowhere does Erasmus’ attitude towards current theology appear more 
strikingly than in the Azotations appended to his edition of the New 
Testament in Greek (1516), e.g. on r Tim. i. 4 ‘ dwepavros, cuiusmodi fere 
nunc sunt vulgarium theologorum quodlibeta. Nam quo plus est eiusmodi 
quaestiuncularum hoc plus etiam subscatet.? Again on 1 Tim. i. 6 
‘wataodoyia, Quantum ad pronunciationem attinet mataeologia non 
multum abest a theologia, cum res inter se plurimum discrepent. Proinde 
nobis quoque cavendum est ne sic sectemur theologiam ut in mataeologiam 
incidamus, de frivolis nugis sine fine digladiantes, ea potius tractemus quae 
nos transforment in Christum et caelo dignos reddant.’ 


N 2 


180 Dissertations. 


Colet, who showed great unwillingness to speak on the 
subject, a condemnation even of Aquinas’. Erasmus 
had been excepting Aquinas from a general condemna- 
tion of scholastics. ‘Colet turned his full eye upon him 
in order to learn whether he really was speaking in 
earnest; and concluding that it was so, “ What,” he 
said, with a sort of inspired force (¢anguam afflatus 
spiritu quodam), “do you extol to me such a man as 
Aquinas? If he had not been possessed with arrogance, 
he would not have defined everything with so much 
temerity and pride; and if he had not had something 
of the worldly spirit he would not have corrupted the 
whole doctrine of Christ with his profane philosophy.” ’ 

This is no doubt a hard unsympathetic judgement on 
Aquinas personally, but coming from a man like Colet 
it is an important judgement on the method which he 
represents. The experience of the scholastic system 
inspired in Colet’s mind a passionate desire to return 
to the Bible and the Apostles) Grecd= 
And no one can interpret the Reformation rightly, on its 


to simplicity 





’ Erasmus, £/. 435, Opera (Lyons, 1703) iii. p. 458 and cf. Seebohm, 
Oxford Reformers (Longmans, 1869) pp. 102 ff. * Froude, Lzfe and Letters 
of Erasmus (Longmans, 1894) pp. 106, &c. 

* Seebohm, /. c. p. 106. See Erasmus, ZZ. 207 ‘Optarim frigidas 
istas argutias aut amputari prorsus aut certe solas non esse theologis, et 
Christum illum simplicem ac purum penitus inseri mentibus hominum: id 
quod hac potissimum via fieri posse existimo si linguarum adminiculis adiuti 
in ipsis fontibus philosophemur.’ £/. 329 ‘ Quae pertinent ad fidem quam 
paucissimis articulis absolvantur. Z/. 613 (to Archbp. of Palermo) ‘ Ea 
(pax | vix constare poterit, nisi de quam potest paucissimis definiamus et in 
multis liberum relinquamus suum cuique iudicium, propterea quod ingens 
sit rerum plurimarum obscuritas, et hoc morbi fere innatum sit hominum 
ingeniis ut cedere nesciant simul atque res in contentionem vocata est ; quae 
postquam incaluit, hoc cuique videtur verissimum quod temere tuendum 
susceperit.’ The whole of this letter is of the greatest interest. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 181 


religious side, who does not bear in mind the existence 
of a wide-spread and passionate desire to get back to 
the Christ of the Gospels and the primitive Church. 

In the case of Luther, this return to the Christ of the 
Gospels at once produced a belief in properly human 
limitations of knowledge in our Lord’s manhood. ‘ Ac- 
cording to the plain sense of Luke’s words (ii. 52), in 
the simplest manner possible, it really took place that 
the older Christ grew, the greater He grew: the greater, 
the more rational; the more rational, the stronger in 
spirit and the fuller of wisdom before God, in Himself 
and before the people. These words need no gloss. 
Such a view too is attended with no danger and is 
Christian; whether it contradicts the articles of faith 
imagined by scholastics or not is of no consequence.’ 
So he emphasizes the human reality of our Lord’s 
temptation and desolation. This ethical reality of our 
Lord's manhood he interpreted, not by any theory of 
the divine self-emptying—for he made the already 
human Christ the nominative to éxévwoer in Phil. ii. 6— 
but by a view which tends in the Nestorian direction. 
His language seems to postulate a separate personality 
for the human nature of Christ, and though he believes 
the man Jesus to have been indissolubly united to the 
Godhead from the first, yet he conceives the effects of 
the union to have been only gradually imparted to him %. 
This quasi-Nestorian tendency, however, was checked in 

1 Luther’s Ofera, ‘ Kirchenpostille’ (Walch, xi. pp. 389-90). See Dormer, 
Zc. div. ii. vol. ii. pp. gt ff. 

2 See Dorner, /.c. pp. 95-100, and note 8, p. 391. In the above passage 


I have adopted Dorner’s view of Luther’s early theory, which his references 
seem to me to justify. But see Bruce, /.c. lect. ili. note A, p. 373. 


182 Dissertations. 


Luther by the sacramental controversy. Driven to defend 

. 3 
the doctrine of the real presence of our Lord’s body and 
blood in the sacrament of the eucharist by a theory of 
the ubiquity of our Lord even in His humanity, he was 
led to speak of this ubiquity as resulting from the union 
of the divine and human natures, and of the communicatio 
idiomatum from one to the other as existing from the 
beginning of the Incarnation’. This led to a develop- 
ment of thought in a Monophysite rather than a Nesto- 
rian direction and this rival tendency, which renders 
Luther's Christology very difficult to understand as 
a whole, became dominant in the Lutheran schools. 
It resulted in the formation of a Christology based on 
ubiquitarianism, which Dr. A. B. Bruce, without undue 
severity, pronounces to be, to an amazing extent, ‘arti- 
ficial, unnatural, and incredible.’ 

Meanwhile the Reformed (Zwinglian) theologians, in 
strong opposition to the Lutheran interpretation of the 
communicatio tdiomatum *, were emphasizing the distinct 

1 Dorner, /. c. pp. 127, 132-4, 138-9. 

2 Bruce, /.c. p. 83. 

° To the doctrine they held, see Niemeyer, Collectio Confesstonum (Leip- 
zig, 1840), pp. 485 (Confessto Helvetica posterior), 632 (Repetitio Anhaltina), 
but in its original sense. The phrase dvridoo1s iS:wpatwy was originally used 
—first apparently by Leontius of Byzantium—to express the transference, not 
so much of qualities, as of names appropriate to one of our Lord’s natures 
to the other in virtue of the unity of His person. See Leont. Byz. covz. 
Nestor. et Eutych.i (P. G. \xxxvi. p. 1289 c) 60” Hyets Kata Tds Oeias 
ypapas Kal rds marponapaddérovs Oewpias moAAdnis TO GAov Ek pépous Kal Ta 
Hépn TH TOV GrAov KAGE Tpocayopevopuev, vidv dvOpwrov Tov Adyor évopya- 
Covres kat kvpiov THs 5ugns EctavpHobar dpodroyourTes, GAX’ ov Tapa TOUTO TH 
dvribdce Tov idiwuatav dvaipovpev Tov tdioy ACyov THs OaTépov ev TAVT@ 
ididtnTos. mpos € Kai bid Kupiwy Hulvy TadTa TaY dvopaTwy yvopileTar, THV 
pev avtidoow Tov idiiwparav év TH wed Urocrdce Oewpovor, THY Se ihoTHTA THY 
év 7H KowvdTnTt €v TH Siapop1 TaY picewy éemyivwoKovow. Cf. adv. Arg. 
Sever. p. 1941 a od yap dvTiboats dv TeV idiwyctwv éyivero Ei pr ev ExaTEepy 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 183 


existence in Christ incarnate both of the human nature 
and of its properly human attributes, including the 
limitation of knowledge. This limitation of knowledge 
was believed to have been made possible by a ‘self- 
emptying’ on the part of the eternal Word, by which 
the divines of this school appear to have meant a hiding 
or withholding of the divine attributes (omniscience, &c ) 
from the human mind. But not much was done to 
elucidate the conception or to reconcile the dual con- 
sciousness of Christ—the gemzna mens—with the unity 
of His person. Later writers have indeed suggested 
that the doctrine of a ‘ double life’ of the Word was in 
the minds of some of these teachers—a distinction 
between the Logos totus extra Fesum, living His own 
proper life in the Godhead, and the Logos totus in Fesu, 
that is the same divine Word living another self-limited 
life as the incarnate Christ. This suggestion, however, is 
not based on very clear evidence. Of the idea itself we 
shall hear again in connexion with Martensen. 
Subsequently to the reunion of German Lutherans 
and Reformed in the Evangelical Church (1817), ‘kenotic’ 
views, extreme and moderate, have prevailed among 


épewe kal év TH Evwoe FH ididTys akivnros. Cf. John Damasc. de Fd. Ortho- 
dox. iil. c. 4, and note of P. M. Lequien. The same idea was expressed 
by Gregory Naz. as 7 T@v dvopaTay émifevgis, émadAaTTopévwy ToY 6vo- 
patwy bia THY ovyKpacv, by Gregory Nyss. in the phrase dyripeOicravra 
7a dvopatra, and it became the commonplace of Chalcedonian theology. 
St. Thomas Aquinas also in later days expresses the same idea, but does 
not use the phrase (see Swzma, p. iil. qu. xvi. art. 4 and 5). In this sense 
then—of names, not of qualities—the phrase was used by the Reformed ; 
see Repetit. Anhalt. (as above) ‘est enim communicatio idiomatum praedicatio 
seu forma loquendi qua... ¢tribuztur, etc.’ But, as would be supposed, 
theologians of all schools continually tend to pass, like Luther, from names 
to qualities. 


184 Dissertations. 


Protestant theologians in Germany and in Switzerland 
and there has been also a recurrence (on Dorner’s part) 
to Luther’s earlier view. Of these various doctrines I will 
describe in outline four typical specimens?. 

1. The absolute kenotic view, advocated in Germany 
by Gess 2, shall be represented by the great Neuchatel 
theologian, M. GODET. Commenting on St. Johni. 14°, 


he says, 


‘The proposition, ‘‘The Word became flesh,” can only, 
as it seems to me, signify one thing, viz. that the divine 
subject entered into the human mode of being at the cost 
of renouncing His divine mode of being . . . —incarna- 
tion by deprivation (kévwors). The idea is further 
elaborated later on‘. 

‘Does Scripture, while clearly teaching the eternal 
existence of the Word, teach at the same time the 
presence of the divine state and attributes in Jesus 
during the course of His life on earth? We have seen 
that the formula of John i. 14 is incompatible with such 
an idea. The expression, “ 7e Word was made flesh,” 
speaks certainly of a divine subject, but as reduced to 
the state of man, which, as we have seen, does not at all 
suppose the two states, the divine.and the human, as 
co-existing in it. Such a notion is set aside by exegesis 
as well as by logic. The zmpoverishment of Christ, of 
which Paul speaks 2 Cor. viii. 9, His voluntary sedf- 
abasement, described Phil. il. 6, 7, equally imply His 
renunciation of the divine state at the moment when He 
entered upon human existence. The facts of the Gospel 


’ For fuller information see Bruce, 7. c. lect. iv. 
2 2 


sruce, /.c. pp. 144 ff. 

° Gospel of St. John (Engl. trans. Clark) i. p. 362. Godet intimates 
(p. 401) that he is in substantial, but not complete, agreement with Gess. 

* pp. 396 ff. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 185 


history are at one with those apostolic declarations, 
. . . Jesus no longer possesses on earth the attributes 
which constitute the divine state. Omniscience He has 
not, for He asks questions, and Himself declares His 
ignorance on one point (Mark xiii. 32). He possesses 
a pre-eminent prophetic vision (John iv. 17, 18), but 
this vision is not omniscience. No more does He possess 
omnipotence, for He prays and is heard; as to His 
miracles, it is the Father who works them in His favour 
(xi. 42, v. 36). He is equally destitute of omnipresence. 
His love even, perfect as it is, is not divine love. This 
is immutable. But who will assert that Jesus in His 
cradle loved as He did at the age of twelve, or at the age 
of twelve as He did on the cross? Perfect relatively, at 
every given moment, His love grew from day to day, 
both in regard to the intensity of His voluntary self- 
sacrifice, and as to the ‘extent of the circle which it 
embraced. It wasthusatruly human love. ‘“ The grace 
which is by one maz, Jesus Christ,” says St. Paul for this 
reason (Rom. v. 15). His holiness is also a human holi- 
ness, for it is realized every moment only at the cost 
of struggle, through the renunciation of legitimate enjoy- 
ment and victory over the natural fear of pain (xii. 25, 
27, xvii. 19a). It isso human that. it is to pass. over 
into us and become ours (xvii. 19 b). All those texts 
clearly prove that Jesus while on the earth, did not 
possess the attributes which constitute the divine state, 
and hence He can terminate His earthly career by 
claiming back again the glory which He had before His 
incarnation (xvii. 5). 

How is such a self-deprivation on the part of 
a divine being conceivable? It was necessary, first 
of all, that He should consent to lose for a time His 
self-consciousness as a divine subject. The memory 
of a divine life anterior to His earthly existence would 


186 Dissertations. 


have been incompatible with the state of a true child 
and a really human development. And in fact the 
Gospel texts nowhere ascribe to Jesus a self-conscious- 
ness as Logos before the time of His baptism. The 
word which He uttered at the age of twelve (Luke ii. 49) 
simply expresses the feeling of an intimate relation to 
God and of a filial consecration to His service. With 
a moral fidelity like His, and in the permanent enjoy- 
ment of a communion with God which sin did not alter, 
the child could call God His Father in a purely religious 
sense, and apart from any consciousness of a divine pre- 
existence. The feeling of His redemptive mission must 
have been developed in His earliest years, especially 
through His experience of the continual contrast between 
His moral purity and the sin which He saw staining all 
those who surrounded Him... . According to the 
biblical account, the Logos, in becoming incarnate, did 
therefore really put off His consciousness of His divine 
being, and of the state corresponding to it. This self- 
deprivation was the negative condition of the Incarna- 
tion. ... 

Up to the age of thirty Jesus fulfils this task [of redemp- 
tion]. By His perfect obedience and constant sacrifice of 
self He raises humanity in His person from innocence to 
holiness. He does not yet know Himself; perhaps in 
the light of Scripture He begins dimly to forecast what 
He is in relation to God. But the distinct consciousness 
of His dignity as Logos would not be compatible with 
the reality of His human development and the accom- 
plishment of the task assigned to this first period of His 
life. This task once fulfilled, the conditions of His 
existence change. A new work opens up to Him, and 
the consciousness of His dignity as the well-beloved 
Son, far from being incompatible with the work which 
He has still to carry out, becomes its indispensable basis. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 187 


To testify of God as the Father, He must necessarily 
know Himself as the Son. The baptism is the decisive 
event which begins this new phase. ... Henceforward 
He will be able to say what He could not say before: 
“ Before Abraham was I am.’»... Yet His baptism, while 
restoring to Jesus His consciousness of sonship, did not 
restore Him to His filial s¢aze, the divine form of God 
belonging to Him. There is an immense disproportion 
between what He ézows Himself to be and what He zs 
really. Therein there will be for Him the possibility of 
temptation! ; therein the work of patience. Master of 
all, He possesses nothing. No doubt He lays out on 
His work treasures of wisdom and power which are in 
God, but solely because His believing and filial heart is 
constantly appealing to the fatherly heart of God. 

It was by His ascension that His return to the divine 
state was accomplished, and that His position was at 
last raised to the level of the self-comsciousness which He 
had from His baptism. From that time He was clothed 
with all the attributes of the divine state which He 
possessed before His incarnation; but He was clothed 
with them as the Son of Man, All the fulness of the 
Godhead henceforth dwells in Him, but humanly, and 
even as Paul says, BODILY (Col. il. g).’ 

‘We do not think it necessary to treat here the ques- 
tions which are raised as to the internal relations of the 
Divine Persons, by the view which we have been explain- 
ing regarding the dogma of the Incarnation. For the 
very reason that we hold the divine existence of the 
Son to be a matter of love (the bosom of the Father) and 
not of necessity as with Philo, we think that, when the 
Word descends into the world there to become Himself 


' In his note on the temptation (St. Luke iv) M. Godet says, ‘The Son 
was capable of sin, because He had renounced the divine mode of 
existence.’ 


188 Dissertations. 


one of the beings of the universe, the Father can enter 
into direct relation to the world, and Himself exercise 
the functions of Creator and Preserver which He com- 
monly exercises through the mediation of the Word?.’ 


According to this view the Son in becoming incarnate 
ceases to live the life of Godhead altogether or to exercise 
His cosmic functions. Gess specifies further that the 
eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the 
Holy Spirit through the Son, were suspended from the 
time of the incarnation to that of the glorification of 
Christ: and further maintains that the Word, thus 
depotentiated, took the place of the human soul in Jesus, 
as actually having become a human soul ?. 

I hope in what was said in the first part of this essay 
I have saved myself from the imputation of underrating 
the large element of truth there is in such views as these. 
But they are open to two main objections. First, they 
are based on an exaggerated and one-sided view of the 
phenomena of the Gospel. There are no facts justifying 
any theory at all as to the loss by our Lord during the 
period of childhood and growth of the consciousness of 
His eternal sonship and its gradual recovery. One may 
speculate, but there are no facts. Again, our Lord’s 
attitude towards sin never exhibits any trace of pecca- 
bility. Nor can the doctrine that the love of Jesus 
Christ was not strictly divine love be fairly reconciled 
with such language as ‘ He that hath seen me hath seen 


the Father *. Secondly, so far as this view postulates an 


' p. 403 note: cf. also the statement of M. Godet’s view in Defence of 
the Christian Faith (Clark, Edinburgh) pp. 300-1. 


* Bruce, /.c. pp. 148-50. 3 St. John xiv. 9. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 189 


absolute abandonment by the Son during the period of 
His humiliation of His position and function in the 
Blessed Trinity and in the universe, it has against it the 
strongest considerations. To begin with, it must reckon 
with a weight of Church judgement such as no thought- 
il Christians Catholic, or Protestant, can underrate. 
But more than this: it is opposed to the fairly plain im- 
plications of the very apostolic writers who impress upon 
us the reality of the £evzoszs, St. Paul, andthe author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews!; while, on the ground of 
reason, the assumption of the surrender on the part of 
the Son of such a divine function as that of mediating 
the procession of the Holy Ghost, or such a cosmic 
function as maintaining the universe in being and 
unity, is in itself so tremendous that nothing short of 
a positive apostolic statement could drive one to con- 
template it. 

2. The partial kenotic view, maintained first in 
Germany by Thomasius? and later, though with great 
obscurity and ambiguity, by Prof. Franz Delitzsch 3, shall 
be represented here by its recent representative in 
England, Dr. FAIRBAIRN #4. 


‘But what to the Evangelists did incarnation mean ? 
It meant the coming to be, not of a Godhead, but of 
a manhood. Its specific result was a human, not 
a divine, person, whose humanity was all the more real 
that it was voluntary or spontaneous, all the more 
natural that God, rather than man, had to do with its 
making. To the Evangelists the most miraculous thing 

See above, pp. 91-3. 2 Bruce, 7.4. pp. 138 i. 


1 
8 Biblical Psychology (Eng. trans. Clark) pp. 382 ff. 
* Christ in Modern Theology (Hodder & Stoughton, 1893) pp. 354, 476. 


190 Dissertations. 


in Christ was His determination not to be miraculous, 
but to live our ordinary life amidst struggles and in the 
face of temptations that never ceased. One principle 
ruled throughout: the motives that governed the divine 
conduct governed also the human. This principle and 
these motives may be described as the law of sacrifice. 
The Father denied Himself in giving the Son; the Son 
denied Himself in becoming man and in living as the 
man He had become. Looking up from below, it was 
all one infinite kenxosis; looking down from above, it 
was all one infinite sacrifice. But kenosis and sacrifice 
alike meant that, while He assumed the fashion of the 
man and the form of the servant, both the manhood and 
the servitude, in order to either having any significance, 
had to be as real as the Godhead and the sovereignty. ... 

This act is described as a kenosis, an emptying of 
Himself. Now, this is precisely the kind of term we 
should expect to be used if the Incarnation was a reality. 
It must have involved surrender, humiliation; there 
could be no real assumption of the nature, the form, and 
the status of the created Son, if those of the uncreated 
were in all their integrity retained. These two things, 
the surrender and the assumption, are equal and coinci- 
dent; but it is through the former that the latter must 
be understood. We may express what it means by 
saying that the Incarnation, while it was not of the whole 
Godhead, only of the Son, yet concerned the Godhead 
asa whole. And this carries with it an important con- 
sequence. Physical attributes are essential to God, but 
ethical terms and relations to the Godhead. In other 
words, the external attributes of God are omnipotence, 
omniscience, omnipresence ; but the internal are truth 
and love. But the external are under the command of 
the internal; God acts as the Godhead is. The external 
alone might constitute a creator, but not a deity; the 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 191 


internal would make out of a deity the creator. What- 
ever then could be surrendered, the ethical attributes 
and qualities could not; but God may only seem the 
more Godlike if, in obedience to the ethical, He limit or 
restrain or veil the physical. We reverence Him the 
more that we think the annihilation so easy to His 
omnipotence is made impossible by His love. No such 
impossibilities would be known to an almighty devil; he 
would glory in destruction as much as God glories in 
salvation. We may say then that what marks the 
whole life of Deity is the regulation of His physical by 
His ethical attributes, or the limitation of God by the 
Godhead. But this same principle supplies us with 
a factor for the solution of our problem. The salvation 
of the sinner was a moral necessity to the Godhead ; but 
no such necessity demanded that each of the Divine 
Persons should every moment exercise all the physical 
attributes of God. And this surrender the Son made 
when He emptied Himself and assumed the form of 
a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. The 
determinative divine qualities were obeyed, and the 
determined limited; yet it was, as it were, the renuncia- 
tion of the less in order to the realization of the more 
Godlike qualities. ‘The Word became flesh, and dwelt 
among us;” but we only the more “beheld his glory, 
glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of 
grace and truth”’ (John i. 14). 

Now this view differs from the view of M. Godet, as 
making plainer the real continuity of divine life in the 
Incarnation. It maintains a real continuity of conscious 
life so far as the ethical qualities of the Son of God are 
concerned. But it distinguishes His ethical from His 
physical attributes, and conceives Him as abandoning 
the latter absolutely in becoming incarnate. Thus, as 


192 Dissertations. 


much as M. Godet, Dr. Fairbairn postulates that Christ 
did absolutely abandon His relation of equality with God 
and His functions in the universe. But it is chiefly from 
this point of view that the view of M. Godet was criti- 
cized, and the same considerations apply to this more 
moderate but hardly, I think, more tenable view. 

3. The theory of the double life of the Word. his 
view, which has found incidental expression by 
Mr. R. H. Hutton in England’, is expressed most 
formally by the Danish Bishop MARTENSEN ?. 


‘In that He thus lived as a man, and as “ the Son of 
Man” possessed His Deity solely under the conditions 
imposed by a human individuality in the limited forms 
of a human consciousness, we may undoubtedly say of 
Him that He lived in humiliation and poverty, because 
He had renounced that majestic glory by which, as the 
omnipresent Logos, He irradiates the entire creation.... 

We are to see in Christ, not the naked God, but ¢he 
fulness of Deity framed in the ring of humanity; not 
the attributes of the divine nature in their unbounded 
infinitude, but the divine attributes embodied in the 
attributes of human nature (communicatio idiomatum). 
Instead of the omnipresence we have that blessed pre- 
sence, concerning which the God-man testifies, “ He that 
seeth me seeth the Father” (John xiv. 9)®: in the place 
of omniscience comes the divinely human wisdom which 
reveals to babes the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; 
in the place of the world-creating omnipotence enters 
the world-vanquishing and world-completing power, the 
infinite power and fulness of love and holiness in virtue 


' Theol. Essays (Macmillan, 1888) p. 269. 
* Christian Dogmatics (Clark’s Foreign Theol. Libr.) pp. 266-7. 
* See also Matt. xxviii. 20. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 193 


of which the God-man was able to testify “ All power is 
given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. xxviii. 18). 

Still, there are not two Sons of God, but one Son; 
Christ did not add a new second Son to the Trinity; 
the entire movement takes place within the circle of the 
Trinity itself. At the same time, it must be allowed 
that the Son of God leads in the economy of the Father 
a twofold existence ; that He lives a double life in His 
world-creating and in His world-completing activity. 
As the pure Logos of Deity, He works through the king- 
dom of nature by His all-pervading presence, creates the 
pre-suppositions and conditions of the revelation of His 
all-completing love. As the Crzs¢, He works through 
the kingdom of grace, of redemption, and perfection, 
and points back to His pre-existence (John viii. 58, 
xVil. 5). 


To this view—perhaps I should rather say to this 
attempt to adumbrate a line of thought—there is, I think, 
no objection except the difficulty of conceiving it. It 
accounts for all the scriptural language on both sides, 
and it is reconcilable with the authoritative decisions of 
the Church. As to its being rationally conceivable or 
suggestive something will be said later on’. 

4. In opposition to kenotic theories DORNER’S view * 
may be described as that of a gradual incarnation. 
He repudiates the idea of ‘a lessening or reduction of 
the Logos Himself’: he prefers to speak of ‘a limitation 
of the self-communication of the Logos to humanity.’ 
But how does this help us then to understand the 


RU See-§ 2. D2 2h5ii 
2 See System of Christian Doctrine (Clark’s Foreign Theol. Libr.) iii. 
pp. 308 ff.; Doctr. of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iil. p. 250. 


O 


194 Dissertations. 


limitation of our Lord’s consciousness in the flesh, if 
He personally is the omniscient Logos? Dorner would 
meet this difficulty by repudiating the doctrine of the 
impersonal manhood and postulating, within the life 
of the divine personality of the Word, a complete and 
therefore personal humanity as assumed by Him. Jesus 
was a human person— this man’—whom the Word had 
from the first personally assumed into Himself and with 
whom He was inseparably united, but who none the 
less retained the personal independence of his manhood 
sufficiently to make possible the development of a pro- 
perly human consciousness and the gradual communica- 
tion to him of the divine consciousness, till at last there 
resulted the development of one perfect divine-human 
person and the Incarnation was complete and absolute. 
‘This incarnation,’ he says, ‘may be termed an increasing 
one in so far as through it, on the one hand, an ever 
higher and richer fulness becomes actually the property 
of the man Jesus, and he, on the other hand, becomes 
ever more completely the mundane expression of the 
eternal Son the Image of God.’ 

Dorner’s exposition of his idea is diffuse and difficult 
to state, nor is it easy to make quotations that are 
intelligible and of reasonable length. In the above 
explanation of his view it has become, I fear, a little too 
pronounced—too Nestorian in sound. Dorner empha- 
sizes that the Man is really, personally and inseparably 
united to the Word from the first : that the humanity is 
not more separately personal than is involved in being 
(according to Boetius’ definition of personality) azimae 
valionalis individua substantia: he regards the real 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 195 


personality of the Christ as a divine-human personality 
gradually perfected through the unity of the natures. 

But however much modified—however much it has 
its sharp edges taken off—this view appears to me to 
be still at the bottom Nestorian and unscriptural. The 
person Jesus Christ when He was on earth remembered 
His eternal past. ‘ Before Abraham was,’ He says, ‘I am’; 
He recalls the glory which He had with the Father 
before the world was. His ‘ego,’ therefore, is the eternal 
Ego. Or again, ‘No one knoweth the day and hour, 
not the angels, neither the Son.’ Here the speaker is 
the super-angelic, supra-mundane Son. He, that person, 
had come down from heaven and went back to heaven. 
There is (as far as human thought or language can take 
us) only one person, one ego, and that ego the eternal 
Son. who for us men and our salvation assumed a human 
nature in its completeness, and willed to live and think 
and pray and work and speak under its limitations. In 
a word we do not think Dorner’s view is reconcilable 
fundamentally either with the dogma of Ephesus (or 
indeed the Nicene Creed) or with the theology of the 
New Testament. It has also the defect that it does not 
interpret but confuses the theological language to which 
it yet professes to hold fast. Any Catholic profession 
of faith is, we feel sure, bound to generate in the minds 
of thoughtful persons reading Scripture in its light 
a conception of Christ’s person which Dorner’s view will 
not illuminate or tend to make rationally consistent. 
but will only throw into confusion. 

With the more markedly and confessedly unorthodox 
German views we are not here concerned. 

O 2 


196 Dissertations. 


§ 10, 
The Anglican theology. 


The characteristic of the Anglican Church has been 
from the first that of combining steadfast adherence to 
the structure and chief formulas of the Church Catholic 
with the ‘return to Scripture’ which was the central 
religious motive of the Reformation. This has resulted 
in a theology of the Incarnation from Hooker down- 
wards, which has been catholic, scriptural, rich in 
expression and application, but reserved and unscholastic 
in character. On the subject of our Lord’s human con- 
sciousness there has been a marked unwillingness to 
theorize or even to speak’. Perhaps among the classical 
Anglican divines HOOKER, as he is little occupied with 
Scripture in detail but more with the fathers, comes 
nearest to the later patristic and mediaeval view. 

Thus’, speaking of the wzction of our Lord’s manhood 
by His Godhead, he says: 


‘For as the parts, degrees, and offices of that mystical 
administration did require which He voluntarily under- 
took, the beams of Deity did in operation always accord- 
ingly either restrain or enlarge themselves. From hence 
we may somewhat conjecture how the powers of that 
soul are illuminated, which being so inward unto God 


* Pearson, for example, says nothing (as far as I can discover) on the 
subject. a Eccl. Pol: Noe ae eee 


The Consctousness of our Lord. 197 


cannot choose but be privy unto all things which God 
worketh, and must therefore of necessity be endued with 
knowledge so far forth universal, though not with infinite 
knowledge peculiar to Deity itself!. The soul of Christ 
that saw in this life the face of God was here through so 
visible presence of Deity filled with all manner graces 
and virtues in that unmatchable degree of perfection, 
for which of Him we read it written that “ God with the 
oil of gladness anointed Him above His fellows.”’ 


Bp. ANDREWES expresses not much more than an 
unwillingness to speculate on the subject ?: 


‘For derelinquz a Deo—the body cannot feel it, or 
tell what it meaneth. It is the soul's complaint, and 
therefore without all doubt His soul within Him was 
pierced and suffered, though not that which—except 
charity be allowed to expound it—cannot be spoken 
without blasphemy. Not so much, God forbid! yet 
much, and very much, and much more than others seem 
to allow; or how much, it is dangerous to define.’ 

Again, after quoting and dwelling upon the words of 
St. Leo, oz solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem, he 
continues: ‘And though to draw it so far as some do 
is little better than blasphemy, yet on the other side to 
shrink it so short as other some do, cannot be but with 
derogation to His love.’ 


JEREMY TAYLOR® puts aside the question whether 
Christ did in reality or only in appearance increase in 
knowledge as one of those disputes which belong to 
men who ‘ love to serve God in hard questions.’ 


1 Tt is not plain whether these words are meant to apply to our Lord's 


human intellect only in its glorified state. 
2 Sermons (Library of Anglo-Cath. Theol.) ii, 124, 147- : 
3 Life of Christ, pt. i. § 7. 5 (Heber and Eden’s ed. 1850, ii. p. 158). 


198 Dissertations. 


But mostly Anglican divines have assumed asa matter 
indubitable that there was in our Lord’s humanity a real 
srowth and limitation of knowledge, according to the 
plain sense of Scripture. So 

BULL, in his Defence of the Nicene Creed', when he 
is vindicating the language of Irenaeus to this effect, 
remarks that ‘the reformed are strangely attacked by 
the Papists for this opinion.’ 


BEVERIDGE?: ‘ Our Saviour having taken our nature 
into His person, with all its frailties and infirmities, as 
it is a created being, He did not in that nature presently 
know all things which were to be known. It is true 
as God He then knew all things, as well as He had from 
all eternity: but we are now speaking of Him as a man, 
like one of us in all things, except sin. And ‘ The Son 
Himself as man knew not’ the day and hour of the end. 


WATERLAND against the Arians?: ‘There was no 
equivocation in [Christ] saying what was literally true 
that the Son, as Sox of man, did not know the day and 
hour of the last judgment. The context itself sufficiently 
limits His denial to His human nature.’ 


But I do not think these divines give us any help in 
relating this ignorance of Christ in His humanity to 
Himself, the one divine person. The person in Holy 
Scripture is said to have grown in knowledge, and 
declared Himself the Son to be ignorant of the day and 
hour. 


Of recent years in the English Church there have been 


* (Libr. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.) i. p. 176. 

2 Works (Parker, Oxford, 1846) viii. p. 423. 

* Works (ed. Van Mildert, Oxford Univ. Press, 1843) ii. pp. 162 f., 
ili, 281 f. 


The Consctousness of our Lord. 199 


representatives of almost all schools of thought on this 
subject—of the scholastic theology, of the kenotic views, 
as well as of the more usual reserved Anglican line. 
But it is worth while calling special attention to the 
language of three men whose authority carries special 
weight—the late Dean Church, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. 
Bright. 
The late Dean CHURCH writes in one sermon!: 


“Think of Him drawing human breath, fed by human 
food, speaking human words like yourself, being Him 
who at the very same moment keeps all these worlds in 
being.’ 

In another sermon thus*: ‘When we think of His 
humility, we think at once of His coming among us at all. 
He the everlasting God coming from heaven to narrow 
Himself to the conditions of a creature ; to give up what 
He was with the Father, that He might live with men.’ 


This writer measured his words even, we may be sure, 
in ‘village sermons. These passages are not a mere 
contradiction. But they are the words of a man who 
was more careful to be true to all the facts than to 
present a perfectly harmonized theory. 


‘I shrink much, he writes elsewhere*, ‘from specu- 
lating on the human knowledge of our blessed Lord, 
or the limitations—and they may have been great— 
which He was pleased to impose on Himself, when He 
“emptied Himself” and became as one of us. I have 
never been satisfied with the ordinary explanations of 
the text you quote, St. Matt. xxiv. 46. They seem 

1 Village Sermons (Macmillan, 1892) p. 20. 7. 26, 

3 Life and Letters of Dean Church (Macmillan, 1894) p. 267; cf. 
p.274 4. 


200 Dissertations. 


simply to explain it away as much as any Unitarian 
gloss on St. John i.1. To me it means that He who 
was to judge the world, who knew what was in man, 
and more, who alone knew the Father, was at that time 
content to have that hour hidden from Him—did not 
choose to be above the angels in knowing it—as He 
was afterwards content to be forsaken of the Father. 
But the whole is perfectly inconceivable to my mind, 
and I could not base any general theory of His know- 
ledge on it. I think it is very likely that we do not 
understand the meaning of much that is said in Scrip- 
ture—its sense, and the end and purport for which a¢ 
the time it was said. But it would perplex me much to 
think that He was imperfect or ignorant in what He dzd 
say, whether we understood Him or not.’ 


Dr. WESTCOTT is emphatic that ‘this [creative and 
sustaining] work [of Christ] was in no way interrupted 
by the Incarnation!’; but in dealing with the Incar- 
nation he affirms?: 

‘The mode of our Lord’s existence on earth was truly 
human, and subject to all the conditions of human 
existence. . . . How this “ becoming [flesh|” was accom- 
plished we cannot clearly grasp. St. Paul describes it as 
an “emptying of Himself” by the Son of God (Phil. 
ii. 6f.), a laying aside of the mode of divine existence 
(rd eivat toa Oem); and this declaration carries us as far 
as we can go in defining the mystery.’ 


Dr. BRIGHT writes thus?: 


‘In regard to the senoszs, if it is once granted that 
during Christ’s ministry among men, even at the “ lowest 
points of self-abasement, He was still, as God, upholding 


1 Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 426. * Gospel of St. John, pp. 10-11. 
* Waymarks in Ch, Hist. (Longmans, 1894) appendix G, pp. 392-3. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 201 


all things by the word of His power,” this is enough 
to carry the principle of the interpretation of Phil. ii. 6, 
which confines the fenosts to the sphere of His 
humanity. For, outside those limits, if He acted as 
God at all, He must act so altogether. Within those 
limits, He dispensed with manifestations of His divine 
majesty, except on occasions and for special ends. As 
a rule, He held in reserve, by a continuous self-restraint, 
the exercise of divine powers, and accepted the con- 
ditions of human life with all its sinless infirmities. He 
willed to think and feel humanly through organs of 
thought and feeling which, being human, were limited, 
and on which He did not ordinarily shed the transfigur- 
ing power of what Cyril called His “ proper” or original 
vows, although whenever he taught, He spoke as the 
absolute “Light of men.”’ 


In this passage Dr. Bright seems to me to go beyond 
the language of mere juxtaposition of the human and 
divine consciousnesses. ‘He was truly limited in know- 
ledge within the sphere of His humanity’ is, it seems 
to me, a more valuable and suggestive phrase, more true 
to the New Testament picture, than ‘He was truly 
limited zz respect of His human nature’ and ‘ He knew 
as God, He did not know as man.’ 

Here then we conclude our review of theological 
opinions on the subject of our Lord’s human conscious- 


ness. 


202 Dissertations. 


GER 


THE CONCLUSION OF THIS INQUIRY: THE RELATION 
OF THIS CONCLUSION TO. CHURCH AUTHORITY: 
[TS RATIONALITY. 


a 


Conclusion from our inquiry. 


The conclusions arrived at as the result of our whole 
inquiry can consist in nothing else than a reaffirmation 
of the provisional conclusions to which we were led 
by our examination of the language of the New 
Testament! The great bulk of the language of 
ecclesiastical writers is, it is true, against us. As a 
matter of authority this will come up for consideration 
in the next section. But as a matter of argument, 
the theologians who refuse to recognize the real human 
limitations in the consciousness of the incarnate Son, 
from Clement of Alexandria down to our own day, have 
said nothing which can alter our judgement. They have 
hardly attempted to examine continuously the intel- 
lectual phenomena of our Lord’s human life during the 
period of His humiliation: they have at best but taken 
particular texts and explained them away in the light 
of an a priori assumption as to the effect of the Godhead 
on the manhood, and they have unwarrantably applied 
expressions written of our Lord in glory to our Lord in 


1 See above, pp. 94 ff. 


The Consciousness of our Lora. 203 


His mortal state. In our own day it is still far too 
much the habit to treat the inquiry as a matter of one 
or two texts. It cannot be too much emphasized that 
it is very far from being this. What is told us of our 
Lord’s intellectual growth in childhood, of His relation 
to the Holy Spirit as man both in teaching and work- 
ing miracles, of His progressive ‘learning’ from the 
Father, of His asking questions and expressing sur- 
prise, of His ignorance of the day and. hour of the end, 
of His prayers, of His dismay and agony, of His 
feeling Himself ‘forsaken’ by the Father: all that 
St. Paul and St. John tell us, to account for these facts, 
about His having ‘come down’ from heaven and left 
‘the glory, and after His resurrection returning whence 
He had come—of His ‘emptying Himself, ‘ beggaring 
Himself’ to take the real characteristics of humanity, 
and of His being, in that humanity, subsequently 
exalted: all this (and there is nothing which disagrees 
with it) forces upon us, with a consistent pressure of 
evidence, the conclusion that a real self-emptying was 
involved in the Incarnation. Nor will it suffice to say 
that the Son was limited in knowledge, etc., 7 respect 
of His manhood, so long as we so juxta-posit the omni- 
scient Godhead with the limited manhood as to destroy 
the impression that He, the Christ, the Son of God, was 
personally living, praying, thinking, speaking, and acting 
—even working miracles—under the limitations of 
manhood. It may well be that the absolute truth is 
incomprehensible by us and does not admit of being 
fully interpreted by human words: but the words in 
which we express the mystery—from speaking about 


204 Dissertations. 


which we cannot in any case refrain—must be words 
which are really faithful to the revealed facts and the 
language of the inspired interpreters of the facts: that 
is to say, they must be words which express a real 
abandonment, on the part of the eternal Son in becom- 
ing incarnate, of divine prerogatives inconsistent with 
a proper human experience: they must be words which 
express the fact that, within the period and sphere of 
His incarnate and mortal life, He the eternal Son was, 
doubtless by His own act and will, submitting Himself 
to the limitations proper to manhood. The real Incar- 
nation involves a real self-impoverishment, a real self- 
emptying, a real self-limitation on the part of the 
eternal Word of God. 

It is useless to put in the plea of reverence to bar 
inquiry or exact statement on this subject. The facts 
of the Gospel narrative and the apostolic interpretations 
bearing on this point are too many and have been too 
much neglected to enable one to shrink back from 
examining them. Nor is such candid examination of 
what is revealed at all incompatible with an adoring 
reverence towards the Divine Person who is revealing 
Himself, or towards that tremendous mystery which 
accompanies and half shrouds His redemptive action. 

The conclusion then originally stated I do emphatically 
reassert with the profoundest conviction that it is not 
indeed the whole truth—the whole truth about God or 
the acts of God we cannot know—but the truth as far 
as human mind can receive it and human words express 
it: and I venture to make a fourfold appeal to the 
opponents of this position : 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 205 


1. That they will seriously attempt to grapple with 
the positive evidence for it as a whole and in its con- 
tinuity. This, as far as I can ascertain, they have 
hitherto left undone, and have contented themselves 
with dealing with this or that disconnected ‘text,’ or 
with abstract argument and appeals to consequences. 

2. That they will (so far as they are Anglicans) bear 
in mind that the whole historical position and justi- 
fication of that specific form of Christianity called 
Anglicanism is bound up with its strenuous appeal to 
Scripture. In that appeal we must be sincere and 
thorough. 

3. That they will not forget that, so far as scientific 
theology has in and for this age a special intellectual 
responsibility, it is to be true to facts. Theology— 
Christian theology—may be said to be as really inductive 
as physical science: that is to say it draws conclusions 
from facts of revelation. These facts are utterances of 
prophets and inspired men, but most of all the deeds and 
words of the incarnate Son. As truly as the facts of 
physical nature both justify and limit the conclusions 
of physical science, do these facts of revelation justify 
and limit the conclusions of theology; and where the 
facts cease to support theory, theory is, in theology as 
elsewhere, groundless and misleading. 

4. The real recognition of the suggestions of Scripture 
about our Lord’s human state will give to the Church's 
teaching a great enrichment. There is no doubt, 
I think, that the general teaching of the Catholic 
Church for many centuries about our Lord has removed 
Him very far from human sympathies, very much 


206 Dissertations. 


further than the Christ of the New Testament. The 
minimizing of the meaning of His manhood is (among 
other things) largely accountable for the development 
of an exaggerated devotion to His Mother and the 
Saints. In proportion as the real human experiences, 
sufferings, and limitations of Christ during the period of 
His humiliation are forgotten and ignored, in that pro- 
portion men will go to seek human sympathy from on 
high in some other quasi-deified being. We must 
recover the strength which the Christian creed is meant 
to derive from a Christ made in all points like unto His 
brethren, apart from sin. 

The reality of the Incarnation and of its accompanying 
self-limitation must be put in the forefront of Catholic 
theology, popular and scientific. It means—so far as 
human thought can grasp or words express it—a real 
abandonment of divine prerogative and attributes by 
the eternal Son within a certain sphere. 

But are we to posit this abandonment as absolute? 
Did the Son actually cease to mediate the procession of 
the Holy Ghost in the divine being and to uphold the 
worlds in being? Such a position, I repeat, could 
not be maintained unless the divine revelation posi- 
tively and expressly forced it upon us. But it does not; 
on the contrary there is reason to believe that the 
apostolic writers contemplated the continuance of the 
divine and cosmic functions through the Incarnation. 
We must not then disturb or destroy the picture of the 
incarnate state which they give us in Gospels and 
Epistles by bringing the absolute divine state of the 
Son side by side with the picture of His humiliation: 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 207 


for this is exactly what the apostolic writers do not do. 
We must hold to the reality of the humiliation, and, 
if we can see no further, we must be content to hold 
that, even in a way we cannot conceive, this state of 
limitation within the sphere of the humanity must have 
been compatible with the exercise in another sphere, by 
the same divine person, of the fulness of divine power. 
But the rationality of such a combination is a question 
which must be reserved till we have dealt with the 
standing in regard to ecclesiastical authority of our 
present conclusion. 


§ 2. 


The relation of our conclusion to ecclesiastical 
authority. 


We need have no hesitation in claiming that the 
theological conclusion we have arrived at is wholly con- 
sistent with the actual dogmatic decisions of ecumenical 
councils, which are the only ecclesiastical decisions 
bearing on the present subject, the acceptance of which 
can fairly be said to be required for the ministry in the 
Anglican Church. 

That Christ is God, consubstantial with the Father 
in His divine nature: that He is completely man, 
in mind and spirit as well as body, in His human 
nature: that He is one only person, and that person 
divine, who for us men and for our salvation assumed 
our manhood: that the manhood as assumed remains 


208 Dissertations. 


proper manhood and retains its proper energy and 
attributes unabsorbed into the Godhead—these!? are the 
central Church dogmas in regard to the person of 
Christ, and it will not take long to show that nothing 
said above is in any conflict with any of them. In fact 
it could not be suggested that any heretical tendency 
has been exhibited except in regard to the first and last 
of the above-mentioned decisions. 

The first—the decree of Nicaea—asserts the Son 
consubstantial and coequal with the Father: it goes on 
by way of appendix to deny Him to be changeable or 
alterable*. Can it be said that this decree condemns 
any view which speaks of the Son as becoming subject 
to limitation, or that postulates in the Incarnation any 
change in the mode of being of the eternal Son? 

To this question we answer, first, that the fathers of 
the Council had only moral alterability in view in their 
ecclesiastical decision, as it was only moral alterability 
which the Arians asserted of Christ®, and any idea of 
moral alterability has in this discussion been expressly 
repudiated *. But further, even in regard to meta- 
physical alteration, it must be remembered that in the 
view here presented the limitation of which the incarnate 
Son is the subject is regarded (1) as not affecting His 


See further, for an explanation of them, &. Z. lect. iv. 

* See Heurtley’s de Fide et Symbolo, p.6 Tots 5 €-yovTas . . . 7) TpemTOV 
7} GAAowwrov Tov vidy Tov Beod TovToOUs dvabepaTiCer  KADOALKH Kal ATooTOALKH 
éxxAnala, 

* See Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism (Cambridge, 1882) p. 25 ‘He 
[the Son according to the Arians] must have free will like us and a nature 
capable like ours of moral change, whether for evil or for good.’ Cf. Bright, 
Waymarks, p. 387. 

* See above, p. 96. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 209 
essential being or operation in the universe, (2) as not 
imposed from without but an act of His own power— 
that divine power which declares itself ‘ most chiefly’ in 
such self-renouncing ‘pity’ and love!. All that is asked 
then is that the Son should be regarded as exhibiting 
a divine capacity for self-accommodation within a certain 
sphere in carrying out His unchanging redemptive pur- 
pose. With such a view the fathers of Nicaea were 
not in any way concerned. Such self-accommodation is 
not ‘mutability,’ but the self-adaptiveness, the move- 
ment, of real spiritual life. As far as any charge of 
attributing ‘mutability’ to the Son in this metaphysical 
sense was made in the Arian controversy it was made 
mostly on the Arian side against the orthodox. ‘All 
generation, the Arians said, ‘is a sort of change; but 
God is immutable: therefore God cannot be either 
generating or generated.’ To which there is no better 
expressed reply than that of Victorinus Afer”, where he 
refuses to identify the movement of divine life with 
change. Eternal life in God means eternal movement. 
It is only such eternal movement of life as makes in- 
telligible such subsequent temporal ‘changes’ as are 
involved in the divine acts of creation or redemption. 
Nor should it be left out of sight that, so far as the 
self-limitation of the Son even within a certain sphere 
of operation may be supposed to affect His essential 


1 See above, pp. 142, 148, for phrases quoted from Gregory of Nyssa 
and Hilary. 

2 The argument here is quoted from Candidus the Arian to whom 
Victorinus Afer replied. But the argument was a commonplace of discus- 
sion: see Gwatkin, Z.c. p. 24°; and on Candidus and Victorinus see s. v. 
VICTORINUS in Dict. of Chr. Biog. iv. pp. 1130 ff. with reff. 


P 


210 Dissertations. 


consubstantiality with the Father, it is relative to that no 
less mysterious but also no less real act of self-denial 
on the part of the Father which the New Testament 
describes as His ‘ giving up’ or ‘giving’ the Son. There 
is reciprocal self-sacrifice postulated alike in the Father 
and the Son}. 

As regards the last of the decisions summarized above, 
which is contained in the decrees of the fourth and sixth 
Councils, it may be said that as they assert the complete- 
ness in our Lord of both the divine and human natures 
and activities—the fulness of both natures being in- 
separably but unconfusedly united in the one person— 
so any position which involves incompleteness of adzvine 
activity or knowledge in the Incarnation is as much 
opposed to these decisions as one which involves 
a similar human incompleteness. 

To this I should reply, primarily and to secure my 
ground, that the view expressed above involves no limita- 
tion of the divine activity of the Word absolutely in 
Himself or in the world, but only within a certain area. 
I can, therefore, affirm without any hesitation with the 
fourth Council that the ‘one and the same Son, our 
Lord Jesus Christ, is both perfect in Godhead and perfect 
in manhood, truly God and truly man,...consubstantial 
with the Father according to His Godhead, and with us 
according to His manhood “‘in all points like us, apart 
from sin,” begotten of the Father before all ages, accord- 
ing to His Godhead, and in these last days, the same 
person, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the 
Virgin, the Theotokos, according to His manhood ; one 


1 St. John iii. 16; 1 St. Johniv. 9; Rom. viii. 32. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 211 


and the same person made known as Christ, Son, Lord, 
Only-Begotten, in two natures, unconfusedly, unchange- 
ably, indissolubly, inseparably ; the distinction of the 
natures being in no wise destroyed on account of the 
union, but each nature rather preserving its own special 
characteristic, and combining to form one person!’ Or 
with the sixth Council, that ‘We glorify in our Lord Jesus 
Christ, our true God, two natural energies indissolubly, 
unalterably, indivisibly, unconfusedly, that is the divine 
energy and the human energy; as Leo the theologian 
most clearly says, ‘‘ Either form energizes in fellowship 
with the other as is proper to itself, the Word working 
what belongs to the Word, and the body accomplishing 
what belongs to the body ”.”’ 

Such decisions are in no way dissonant with a view 
which, maintaining the integrity and distinctness of the 
Godhead and of the manhood in the one person of the 
Son of God, maintains also, as the language of the New 
Testament demands, that the activity (and consciousness) 
of the Godhead was, by His own will, restrained and 
limited wzthin the sphere of the Incarnation, to allow the 
real action of the manhood and its own proper ‘energy’ ; 
and it needs to be pointed out that the special view 
here maintained was not at all before the mind of these 
councils—which were intent upon a quite different task, 
with which the present writer cannot be accused of 
lack of sympathy, that of securing against monophysite 
tendencies the permanence and real action of the man- 
hood and of its faculties in our Lord’s person. 


1 The Definition of Chalcedon (de Fide et Syd. p. 27). 
2 The decision of Constantinople III (Gieseler, Zccl. (ist. ii. p. 170). 


P 2 


212 Dissertations. 


Indeed, it seems to me that a candid review of the 
theological tendencies of the fourth and fifth centuries 
leads a student even to an increased respect for the 
ecumenical councils, and an increased belief in the 
divine providence which superintended their decisions. 
For, while the theological tendencies of the time were 
seriously one-sided and set to emphasize the divine 
at the expense of the human, the conciliar decisions are 
deliberately and perfectly balanced. They can only be- 
come a source of peril if their true nature, as primarily 
negative and wholly relative to Scripture, is forgotten — 
if they are used, in place of the historical figure of 
Christ, as positive data or materials from which to 
obtain by abstract deduction a conception of what the 
Christ ought to have been. The churchman who makes 
a right use of the Church’s decisions—who, that is, accept- 
ing the Church’s creed in Christ as Son of God made 
man, perfect.God and perfect man, goes back to the 
reverent but also candid study of the figure in the Gospels, 
will not be in any peril of finding this his central faith 
contradicted in the New Testament; he will but find it 
enriched and deepened. If he pursues his theological 
studies he will, I believe, find that a great deal of the 
‘theological comment’ upon the creed, a great deal of the 
theology of approved Catholic writers, needs revising or 
moderating. But as far as the tradition expressed in the 
creeds is concerned—that he will find to need no revision; 
that, with the sacramental system and the structure of the 
visible Church, he will with continually increasing clear- 
ness perceive to belong to that essential permanent Chris- 
tianity which is truly catholic, apostolic and scriptural. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 213 


With such a result the present writer has already else- 
where expressed himself more than satisfied!: and he 
must claim that he has with him in this satisfaction the 
tradition of Anglicanism. It is a note of Anglicanism to 
be satisfied with a very moderate amount of dogmatic 
requirement. A thoroughly faithful Anglican may 
believe that, as in civil government a certain amount of 
legislation is essential, but over-legislation, the over- 
regulation of life, is practically an evil, so in eccle- 
siastical government a certain amount of doctrinal 
requirement is necessary to protect the essence of the 
Church as a society based on a revelation, but that 
dogmatic requirement may easily outrun what the New 
Testament justifies and what is healthy for ecclesiastical 
development. The Church in each age should be free 
to return upon its central creed, structure, and worship, 
and without loss of continuity re-express its theological 
mind, as it has so often already done, in view of the fresh 
developments of the intellectual, moral, and social life 
of man. 

The defectiveness of the theology of fathers and school- 
men on the subject which we have had under review was 
due to causes which belonged to their periods. 

1. Accurate interpretation of the text, whether of New 
Testament authors or of others, is in the main a growth 
of moderntimes. The fathers and schoolmen were often 
in advance of us in theological branches of speculation, 
but generally behind us in ‘ exegesis.’ 

2. Again, their philosophical categories as applied to 
God were abstract and a priori. They did not recognize 


1 See B. L. pp. 108-9. 


214 Dissertations. 


as much as we have been taught to do that if the action 
of reason is implied in the very beginnings of observation 
and is thus logically ‘prior’ to experience, yet human 
reason has no actual contents, it contains no ‘synthetic 
propositions,’ except such as are gained through experi- 
ence: that is to say as the reason is gradually awakened 
by experience to the perception of what is implied in the 
world and in itself. An @ frzorz philosophy of nature or 
of history is sure to be at fault, and still more surely an 
a priort philosophy of God. Most certainly our human 
knowledge of what God is, what His omnipotence, im- 
mutability, omniscience mean, is limited strictly by what 
God is found to have disclosed of Himself in nature and 
humanity, by experience, through inspired prophets and 
Jesus Christ His Son. 

3. No heresies excited so much antagonism as those 
which impugned our Lord’s Godhead. By none, then, 
did the Church run so much risk of being driven into 
opposite extremes. Into such extremes she was not 
driven so far as her dogmatic decisions were concerned, 
but the effect of undue reaction is traceable in many 
even of her greatest schools of theology. 

I should be utterly misrepresenting my own feeling if 
I allowed myself to be understood as disparaging in any 
way the fathers as theologians. In the special subject 
of this inquiry we do not, for the reasons just explained, 
see them at their best. But I do not believe that, taken 
on the whole, so much whether of theological or moral 
illumination is to be gained from any study, outside Holy 
Scripture, as is to be gained from the great theologians 
who are called, and legitimately called, ‘ the fathers.’ 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 215 


§ 3, 
The rationality of our conclusion. 


The conception at which we have arrived from the 
examination of the New Testament, and which we have 
found to be at least in no opposition to the authoritative 
dogmas of the Church Catholic, seems to involve us in 
thinking of the Incarnation somewhat after the manner 
of Bishop Martensen!. An old writer said of our Lord 
that within His humanity He ‘ withdrew from operation 
both His power and His majesty’. To this, as we 
have seen, we must add—His omniscience. But with- 
drawing these from operation within the sphere of 
the humanity He yet Himself lived under human con- 
ditions. And this seems to postulate that the personal 
life of the Word should have been lived as it were from 
more than one centre—that He who knows and does all 
things in the Father and in the universe should (reverently 
be it said) have begun to live from a new centre when 
He assumed manhood, and under new and restricted 
conditions of power and knowledge. Is this conceivable, 
or is there even any line of thought which tends in the 
direction of making it conceivable? Especially in regard 
to knowledge, does it mean anything to suggest that 


1 See above, pp. 192-3. 
2 Potentiam suam et maiestatem ab opere retraxit: the words are 


ascribed to Ambrose, but I cannot find them in his works. 


216 Dissertations. 


He, the same eternal Son, should in one sphere not know 
what in another, and that His own proper sphere, He 
essentially knows? 

There are some considerations which may assist us in 
this difficulty. 

1. First, let us remember that supposing we can get 
no help towards the conceiving (or imagining) of this 
situation, the case is not by any means either desperate 
or unique. Nothing that is a fact can be irrational, 
but many things that are facts are beyond the power of 
human conception. Certainly in the region of science what 
is strictly inconceivable by human reason is taken for 
fact. Nothing, to take a now familiar example, can be 
more inconceivable than the properties of the ether which 
physicists find themselves obliged to postulate to explain 
the phenomena of light. On this subject, however, let 
me quote the words of an acknowledged authority. 

‘The assumption,’ says Prof. Sir George Stokes}, ‘ that 
all space, or all at least of which we have any cognizance, 
must be imagined to be completely filled with a supposed 
medium of which our senses give us no information, 
already makes, we might reasonably say, a severe demand 
upon our credulity ; and indeed there are, or at least 
have been, minds to which the demand appeared to be 
so great as to cause the rejection of that theory of light. 
And when we provisionally assume the existence of an 
ether, and use it as a working hypothesis in our further 
investigations, we find ourselves obliged to admit pro- 
perties of this supposed ether so utterly different from 


* Natural Theology (Gifford Lectures, 1893) pp. 21 and1g. Cf. Wright’s 
Light (Macmillan, 1892) pp. 380-1; and Zacycl. Briann. art. ETHER. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 217 


what we should have imagined beforehand, through our 
previous experience, that we are half staggered.’ ‘ How 
the ether can at the same time behave like an elastic 
solid in resisting the gliding of one portion over another, 
and yet like a fluid in letting bodies freely pass through 
it, is a mystery which we do not understand. Never- 
theless, we are obliged to suppose that so it is.’ The 
Professor goes on to point out that the properties of the 
supposed ether appeared both so inconceivable and so in- 
compatible with British common sense that our country- 
men were deterred from pursuing their investigations 
into what is now acknowledged to be one of the most 
important factors of the universe: ‘ A slashing article in 
an old number of the Edinburgh Review, ridiculing the 
supposed vagaries of an undulationist, had probably the 
effect of diminishing the share which our own country 
took in the great revival of physical optics in the present 
century.’ 

No wonder Professor Huxley can allow himself an 
inexact expression and say that ‘the mysteries of the 
Church are child’s play compared with the mysteries of 
naturel” It is an inexact expression, because in fact 
the life that is above us is, as we should anticipate, more 
mysterious than the life that is below us. Even less in 
what is above than in what is below us can we identify the 
rational with what we can imagine. And thus, in fact, the 
last thing which we could hope to imagine or, in this 
sense, to conceive would be the absolute and eternal 
consciousness of God, either in itself or in relation to the 
succession of moments in time or in relation to the lower 


1 Quoted by permission from a private letter in B. L. p. 247. 


218 Dissertations. 


human consciousness which He vouchsafed to assume. 
We shall then be in no irrational position if we are 
obliged to confess that our imagination is absolutely 
baffled by the condition of things which the facts of the 
Incarnation seem to postulate. At least we shall not, 
in the interest of an easier conception, abandon the facts. 
The facts as we can no longer doubt—the same facts 
which force upon us the conclusion that our Lord was 
the incarnate Son of God—force us to conclude that the 
incarnate Son was leading for the sake of real sympathy 
with men a life of limitation in knowledge as well as 
power. But here perhaps we have mentioned a word 
which offers us at least some help towards a rational 
conception of this mystery. 

2. Sympathy, love—this is the keynote of the 
Incarnation. It is along this line that we can best hope 
to understand it. And surely here—in the region of 
love and sympathy—we have something analogous to 
a double life, and a double life which affects the intellect 
as much as any of our powers. To sympathize is to put 
oneself in another’s place. Redemptive sympathy is 
the act of the greater and better putting himself at the 
point of view of the lower and the worse. He must not 
abandon his own higher standing-ground if he is to 
benefit the object of his compassion; but remaining 
essentially what he was he must also find himself in the 
place of the lower; he must come to look at things as 
he looks at them; he must learn things over again from 
his point of view. This is,as we saw before, how Origen 
would have us understand the mystery of.the divine con- 
descension. It is the grown one learning to speak as 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 219 


a child: it is the Divine putting Himself at the point of 
view of the human. 

Now no one who has had the privileges of education 
can attempt to be sympathetic (in a sense worthy of the 
name) with those who have not without finding that his 
superior culture is, if in one way an advantage, in 
another way a marked hindrance. He would give any- 
thing to be able for the time to forget: to retain 
indeed his ideal of knowing, but to get outside all that 
he actually knows; to leave it behind in order that he 
may really and not in mere effort of imagination look 
at things from the uninstructed point of view. The 
natures most gifted with sympathy seem actually for the 
moment to accomplish this. They do seem to abandon 
their own normal platform of knowledge and to trans- 
late themselves into alien conditions. Now we have no 
better guide to the methods of God than the best 
human sympathy and love. Only the acts of God are 
infinitely more perfect than our best acts,more continuous 
and more thorough. May not then the sympathetic 
entrance of God into human life have carried with it— 
not because it was weak but because it was powerful— 
something which can only be imagined or expressed 
by us as a real ‘forgetting’ or abandoning within the 
human sphere of His own divine point of view and 
mode of consciousness? And are we not helped towards 
some such supposition by reflecting that the attributes 
of God, on account of the perfection of His personal 
unity, are not (so to speak) separable from one another 
or from His personality but are identically one? May it 
not be that our knowledge can be at times a hindrance 


220 Dissertations. 


to us, a hindrance that we would gladly for the time 
fling away and be by far more powerful for having lost, 
because it is imperfectly assimilated into our personality 
—because it is an attribute which has not wholly become 
our self? May it not be that because God is perfect and 
His attributes inseparable from His person, therefore 
His knowledge is, far more than can be the case with 
us, under the control of His personal, essential will of 
love? And is not this a line of thought along which 
we gain real help in conceiving how the Son of God 
can have so loved mankind as by an act of power to 
enter into humanity and, remaining Himself, to live a 
human life from a human point of view, unembarrassed 
in His act of love by any impotence to control His 
own knowledge? 

Nor, when we are discussing the conceivableness of 
such an act of divine sympathy, can we omit to notice 
that (apart from recognition of the Incarnation) it is 
very difficult to us to give reality to all that body of 
scriptural language which attributes to the absolute, 
omniscient God sympathy with men, sympathy of an 
anthropomorphic kind. It is fair to say that, if the self- 
limitation of the Incarnation is in itself difficult to con- 
ceive, on the other hand it reflects light upon the whole 
body of language which inspired men, a/most in proportion 
to their inspiration, have found it necessary to use about 
God. All real sympathy of the unconditioned for the 
conditioned demands, as far as we can see, real self- 
limitation. 

3. Again, may we not advance one step more in 
the direction of conceiving the mystery when we set 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 221 


ourselves to think how utterly different from the divine 
consciousness must be the human. A thoughtful writer 
has recently bidden us reflect how all human knowledge 
(1) is at least conditioned by the senses through which 
alone the suggestions are presented which make thought 
possible ; (2) is discursive, gathered laboriously piece by 
piece and with difficulty attaining to any comprehensive 
grasp which is at the same time accurate and real ; 
(3) can never really arrive at apprehending the inner- 
most essence of things. But the knowledge of God, 
though it is the ground and source of human knowledge, 
is as distinct in kind from it as is the divine personality 
distinct from the human which yet is based upon it. 
So far as we can conceive, the divine knowledge must 
be (1) an absolute intuition, and therefore (2) infinitely 
comprehensive, and (3) infallibly penetrative of the inner- 
most essence of things. Let us but ponder for a little 
while on the infinite gulf which lies, in these ways, 
between the knowledge of God and that of man, and we 
shall feel how almost mutually exclusive the divine and 
human modes of knowing must be. We shall understand 
why St. Paul represents to us that there is a break 
between the ‘knowledge’ we now have and the diviner 
knowledge we shall have beyond the veil—a break which 
there is not between the love, or even the faith and hope, 
of now and hereafter!. The more we ponder on this the 
more it seems to me we can realize how that ‘ birth’ by 
which God became man, to enter into man’s experience, 
for the sake of man’s redemption, must have involved 
within the sphere of the humanity something which in 


1 1 Cor. xili. 8-13. 


222 Dissertations. 


human language can only be expressed as ‘a sleep and 
a forgetting, so strangely exclusive (as it would seem) 
is the human mode of consciousness of the divine!. 

4. Lastly, we are beyond question helped in the 
consideration of this mystery by the tendency of the 
deepest modern thought in regard to God’s relation to 
nature and man as a whole. The older and more 
pantheistic way of regarding the immanence of God in 
nature ran the risk of losing the distinctive being of the 
creatures in the abyss of the being of God. But more 
exact knowledge forces us to realize more thoroughly 
the distinctive existence and quality of natural objects. 
Nature is for us infinitely more complex, more full, 
more real than for the ancients: so that in our age it has 
been easy for some even to forget God in nature. It is 
right neither to forget nature in God nor God in nature, 
but to learn from nature right notions about the method 
of God. God realizes His will in nature by an infinite 
variety of distinctive forms of life. And He loves to see 
each form of life realize itself in its own way. He 
respects the nature of each thing. ‘ He tastes an infinite 
joy in infinite ways, by, as it were, living not only in 
Himself but in the separate life of each of the creatures. 
Nor do we realize this less if we look away from nature 
as it is at any moment in its infinite complexity of 

' The thoughtful writer to whom I allude is the author of an article 
in the Church Quarterly (Oct. 1891), on ‘ Our Lord’s knowledge as man.’ 
I cannot however exactly accept his conclusions. He seems to me to fal! 
back too much upon considerations of logic as opposed to considerations of 
sympathy. ‘Thus he acquiesces in the mere juxtaposition of the two con- 
sciousnesses in our Lord; supposing e. g. that when He said He did not know, 


what is meant is only that the knowledge which He had as God, He had 
not ‘translated’ into the human mode. 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 223 


manifold forms of life and begin to contemplate the 
history of its development. Still we are struck by the 
extent to which (to express the facts roughly) God leaves 
things to work out their own perfection by the slow, as 
it were tentative, method of ‘ natural selection,’ through 
which advance has in fact been made. 

And this respect of God for His creatures is seen 
most of all in His relation to man. He never indeed 
allows human freedom to disturb the main course of 
the world’s development ; to tolerate that would be to 
abandon the providential government of the world!, 
But within such an area as allows man to exercise 
a real, though limited, freedom—to such a degree as at 
least may involve considerable disturbance in the divine 
order for the sake of the value of free, as distinct from 
mechanical, service—God stands aloof and respects that 
free nature which He has created, that image of His 
own freedom which He has, as it were, planted out in 
the heart of the physical creation. God respects His 
creature man. Huis power refrains itself. But is there, 
in order to leave room for man’s freedom of choice, 
a limitation, not only of God’s power, but of His fore- 
knowledge? Is the old controversy as regards human 
freedom and divine foreknowledge to be solved in part 
by the suggestion that a limitation of divine foreknowing 
accompanies the very act of creating free agents? The 
idea has commended itself to some very thoughtful minds : 

1 Lotze, Aficrocosmus (Eng. trans. Clark, 1887) i. pp. 258 f. ‘Do we 
not as we actually are, free or not, as a matter of fact interfere—to disturb 
or destroy—with the nature around us, leaving behind many distinct traces 


of our wayward energy, while yet we cannot on a large scale shake the order 
of things?’ 


24 Dissertations. 


to Origen, as has already incidentally appeared in this 
discussion, and to Dr. Martineau in modern times!. 
The accurate examination of the meaning assigned to 
divine ‘foreknowledge’ in the Bible tends to shake the 
traditional belief that God is there revealed as knowing 
absolutely beforehand how each individual will act. 
Nevertheless, it is at least as difficult to reject this 
belief as to admit it. But, whatever be our relation to 
it, at least we must admit that the method of God in 
history, like the method of God in nature, is to an 
astonishing degree self-restraining, gradual, we are almost 
driven to say, tentative. And all this line of thought— 
all this way of conceiving of God’s self-restraining power 
and wisdom—at least prepares our mind for that supreme 
act of respect and love for His creatures by which the 
Son of God took into Himself human nature to redeem 
it, and in taking it limited both His power and His 
knowledge so that He could verily live through all the 
stages of a perfectly human experience and restore our 
nature from within by a contact so gentle that it gave life 
to every faculty without paralyzing or destroying any. 
Such considerations as these prevent our reason, or 
even—what is so different—our imagination, from falling 
back simply baffled before the facts, in the way of 
limitation of divine knowledge, presented by the Incar- 
nation of the Son of God. But the main purpose of this 
dissertation has been simply to establish the facts and 


' For Origen see above, p. 116. For Dr. Martineau see 4 Study of 
Religion, bk. iii. ch. ii. § 4 (Oxford, 1888, ii. pp. 278 f.). The Rev. T. B. 
Strong Manual of Theology, Black, 1892, pp. 235-6) contemplates the idea 
as just possible 


The Consciousness of our Lord. 225 


to show cause for believing that, in spite of the somewhat 
scanty recognition which they have hitherto obtained 
from orthodox theologians, we have to-day both liberty 
as Catholics, and positive obligation as interpreters of 
Scripture, to give them a franker and more full-faced 
acknowledgement. 





DisseRVTATION Et 





TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND 
hee aN PS 


THE object of this paper is— 

I. To describe the theological process by which 
Transubstantiation became a dogma of the Roman 
Church. 

II. To indicate the metaphysical difficulties in which 
the dogma is involved ; and to show how it violates the 
accepted analogy of the Incarnation, and the philo- 
sophical principle which is involved in the Incarnation, 
viz. that the supernatural and divine does not annihilate 
the natural and material substance in which it manifests 
and communicates itself. 

III. To answer the question—Why then did not the 
analogy of the Incarnation doctrine, dogmatically ex- 
pressed as it was in the decrees which emphasized the 
permanent reality of our Lord’s manhood, bar the way 
to the dogma of transubstantiation ? 


230 Dissertations. 


r. 
The growth of the doctrine of transubstantiation. 


In the theological period, which is measured by the 
Council of Chalcedon on one side and on the other by 
the second Council of Nicaea in the east and the age of 
Charles the Great in the west — roughly A.D. 450-800, 
we find two tendencies in eucharistic doctrine. 

There is the tendency from the doctrine of a real 
presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in and with 
the elements of bread and wine towards a doctrine of 
transubstantiation, i.e. a doctrine which regards the 
supernatural presence as annihilating its natural vehicle 
except in mere appearance. This tendency is more 
apparent during this period in the east than in the 
west, and it reaches distinct expression (c. A.D. 750) in 
John of Damascus’ systematized treatise de /ide Ortho- 
doxa(iv.13). John’s theory may fairly be called a theory 
of transubstantiation, not because he uses the word 
‘transform’ of the action of the Holy Spirit upon the 
elements, for that expression is used by writers who 
certainly do not hold any doctrine of transubstantiation ’, 

‘e.g. by the author of the de Sacramentis, ascribed to St. Ambrose, 
who freely uses the phrases convertere, mutare, and asserts, as strongly as 
possible, the real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the euchar- 
istic elements in virtue of consecration, but still writes (iv. 4) ‘Si ergo tanta 
vis est in sermone domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant [i. e. in the 
original creation of the world], quanto magis operatorius est [i.e. in the 


eucharistic elements] ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur.’ In some 
of the copies of this work in Lanfranc’s time this reading had been altered 


Transubstantiation and Nihtlanism. 231 


but because (1) adopting a suggestion of Gregory of Nyssa, 
he expressly speaks of the consecrated bread as by the 
supernatural and incomprchensible power of the Spirit 
transformed into the holy body, just as by the natural 
process of digestion bread is transformed, losing of 
course its own nature, into the substance of our bodies : 
and because (2) he accordingly repudiates the phrase 
‘symbols’ (dvrituma) as applied to the elements of 
bread and wine after consecration—a phrase which his 
predecessors, believing that these elements remained in 
existence after consecration and retained with their 
nature their natural symbolism, had not shrunk from 
using}. 


(see his de Corp. et Sang. Dom. 9), but it is undoubtedly original. The 
author goes on to compare the change in the elements to that in the 
regenerate person. 

Gregory of Nyssa in the same way describes the man who is ordained 
priest as weTapoppwOels mpods TO BeATiov (in Bapt. Christi, P. G.xlvi. p. 584); 
cf. also his language about the ‘ transmutation’ in the regenerate (Ovaté. Car. 
c. 40, P. G. xlv. p. IoI b, c), where it is carefully explained that the essence 
of manhood is unchanged by the transforming gift, and only its bad qualities 
obliterated. The argument from Gregory’s laxer use of these expressions, 
MeTaoTaols, peTaBorAn, PETACTOLYElwWols, GVaTTOLXElwOoLS, peETATOINOIS, META- 
poppwors, is unaffected by the fact that Gregory appears to suggest a doc- 
trine of real transubstantiation in regard to the eucharist. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria (2 Joann. ii. 1, P. G. 1xxili. p. 245, quoted by 
Mason, Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, p. 299) applies the term 
‘transelementation’ (dvaoro:yecovrar) with apparent exactness to the water 
of baptism under the influence of consecration by the Spirit. Cf. also 
Cyril of Jerusalem’s language (Cat. AZyst. ili. 3) about the chrism. Yet 
these elements were not believed by these writers to cease to exist. 

1 Thus the phrase is used as late as after the middle of the sixth century 
by Eutychius of Constantinople (Sermo de Paschate et S. Euch. P. G.\xxxvi. 
p- 2391) éupigas éavtoy T@ dvtitimw... 7 cHpa Kal aipa Tov Kupiov Tots 
avritumos évTiOépevov Sid Tov iepovpy.wv. LEpiphanius the deacon repeats 
John’s repudiation of the phrase at the second council of Nicaea (act. 6, 
tom. 3 ad fin.) and, like John, denies that apostles or fathers ever used 
it of the elements after consecration—po Tov ay.acOnvat ExANOy avTitvt7a, 


232 Dissertations. 


There are not wanting traces of a similar mode of 
explaining the real presence of Christ in the holy 
sacrament also in the west; but there the influence of 
Augustine was dominant, and, somewhat obscure as his 
view of the eucharist undoubtedly is, it is at any rate 
certain that he did not believe in transubstantiation. 
This is certain for two reasons. (1) He speaks of the 
consecrated elements in the eucharist as in themselves 
only ‘signs’ of the body and blood of Christ: signs 
which, if they are themselves called the body and blood 
of Christ, are so called only on the principle that signs 
are called by the name of the things they signify. 
(2) He draws a marked distinction between the physical 
manducation of the sacrament which is possible to all 
and the manducation of the flesh and blood of Christ 
which he sometimes plainly declares to be possible only 
to the believing and spiritually minded, or to those who 
hold the unity of the Church, ‘the body of Christ,’ in 
love. Augustine’s language is certainly as a whole 
susceptible of being interpreted in the sense of an 
‘ objective’ spiritual presence in the elements, after such 
a manner as does not interfere with the permanence of 
the bread and wine, such a presence as faith only can 
either recognize or appropriate; or it may fairly be 
interpreted on a receptionist theory like Hooker’s—it is 
in fact probably somewhat inconsistent — but it is not 
susceptible of an interpretation in accordance with the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. And so long as Augus- 
tine’s influence was dominant in eucharistic doctrine, 


\ ‘ \ 3 \ A , \ = ° , , > \ 
peta O€ TOY ayiacpoVv o@pa Kupiws Kal aiua Xpiotov A€yovTat Kal Eiaw Kal 
motevovra. This, however, does not truly represent the facts. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 233 


the language of western writers is mostly anti-transub- 
stantiationist '. 


1 Augustine’s doctrine of the eucharist may be summarized under three 
heads: (1) Zhe consecrated elements are signs of the body and blood, and not in 
themselves the things they signify. See Lp. 98. 9 ad Bontfacium ‘Si autem 
sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt 
non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine 
plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum 
quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacra- 
mentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita sacramentum fidei fides 
est’ (i.e. baptism which represents the faith of the infant who is baptized 
is that faith) ; cf. ‘non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum 
cum signum daret corporis sui’ (cov. Adim. Manich. 12). ‘This passage, with 
others, must interpret his words when he comments thus zz Psalm. xxxiii 
(title) Lvarr.i. 10: ‘ Ferebatur enim Christus 2% manibus suis quando 
commendans ipsum corpus suum ait hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim 
illud corpus in manibus suis.’ . . . ‘accepit in manus suas quod norunt 
fideles et ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum 
(ii. 2)... Roman Catholic controversialists generally omit to notice the 
quodam modo which corresponds to the secundum qguendam modum above. 
‘the bread and wine then considered in themselves represent, and are not, 
the body and blood of Christ. In the same way the bread, because 
composed of many grains, represents the ‘mystical body’ of Christ, the 
Church, and this mystical body is sometimes spoken of as the ves sacra- 
mentt, e.g. Lp. 185. 50 ad Lonzfactum ‘rem ipsam non tenent intus 
{Donatistae] cuius est illud sacramentum’ (i.e. ecclesiam) ; cf. 2 Joan. 
LPR. REVIT 7. 

(2) But the spiritual gift of the eucharist as really the flesh and blood of 
Christ ; the same flesh and blood in which He lived on earth, but ratsed 
toa new spiritual power, become ‘spirit and life. See tn Ps. xcviil. 9g ‘In 
ipsa carne hic ambulavit et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem 
dedit, nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit.’ This 
‘ flesh’ in its glorified condition has become ‘spirit’ and ‘life’ ; so Augus- 
tine interprets St. John vi, 63, see 7vact. xxvii. 5 and app. note C. He appears 
sometimes to distinguish the ‘ flesh’ and the ‘ body,’ e. g. 2 Ps. xcviii after 
saying that the flesh of the eucharist is the same as the flesh of our Lord’s 
mortal life, he goes on to say the body is not the same: ‘Non hoc corpus 
quod videtis manducaturi estis et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt 
qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter 
intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est visibiliter celebrari, oportet 
tamen invisibiliter intelligi.’ Perhaps at times he thought of the spiritual 
essence of Christ’s humanity, the ‘flesh,’ as receiving a new symbolical 
‘body’ in the bread and wine; this spiritual essence of Christ’s humanity 


234 Dissertations. 


In the great theological revival which marked the 
empire of Charles the Great and his first successors, the 
doctrine of the holy eucharist became for the first time 
an explicit subject of controversy. The theologians of 
the beginning of this period mostly follow Augustine on 
the subject. Thus Alcuin (Albinus Flaccus) repeats in 
his commentary on St. John, the ‘receptionist ’ language 
of Augustine. So Amalarius of Metz (c. A. D. 820), while 


becoming also the spiritual essence of the Church ; so that the sacramental 
‘body’ represents equally Christ and the Church. 

(3) Zhis gtft of the flesh and blood of Christ Augustine sometimes 
speaks of as given to all, good and bad, alike. See de Bapt. con. Donat. 
v. 9 ‘Sicut enim Iudas cui buccellam [i.e. the ‘sop’| tradidit Dominus 
non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo locum in se diabolo praebuit, 
sic indigne quisque sumens dominicum sacramentum non efficit ut quia ipse 
malus est malum sit, aut quia non ad salutem accipit nihil acceperit. Corpus 
enim Domini et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat 
apostolus, guz manducat indigne tudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Ct. 
Serm. 71.17 (de verbis Matt. xii. 32) where he distinguishes the different 
modes in which the good and bad eat the flesh of Christ and drink His 
blood. But at other times he identifies ‘cating the flesh of Christ’ quite 
explicitly with ‘abiding in Christ’ and with a living faith. See esp. 2x 
Loan. Tract. xxvi and xxvii, e. g. xxvii. 18 ‘ Per hoc qui non manet in Christo 
et in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat [spiritualiter | 
carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat 
dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi]; sed magis tantae rei 
sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat et bibit [quia immundus praesumpsit 
ad Christi accedere sacramenta].’ (The words in brackets are an interpola- 
tion.) Cf. de Czvit. xxi. 25. There is a great deal of this sort of language 
which makes it impossible to deny a strongly ‘receptionist’ view in Augustine. 
He does not seem to distinguish the ves from the vzrtws in the eucharist. 

The above of course does not profess to be a complete treatment of 
St. Augustine’s eucharistic doctrine in any respect, nor even to touch upon 
his views of the sacrifice. 

' lib, ili. 15, 16 (P. LZ. c. p. 832). The de Divinis Officits is acknow- 
ledged to be not by Alcuin. It is, I think, not less plain that the Confessio 
Fidei (P. L. ci. pp. 1027 ff.) is not his. But even here occurs the sentence, 
“tanta est virtus huius sacrificii ut solis iustis [non] peccatoribus corpus sit 
et sanguis Christi.’ 


TI say that the Confessto Fide? is, in spite of Mabillon’s argument, plainly 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 235 


he asserts a real spiritual change in the elements in virtue 
of consecration, interprets the language of St. John vi, 
about ‘ eating the flesh’ of Christ, of belief in His death 
and fellowship in His passion }. 

Again Florus the deacon, who wrote in an exceedingly 
edifying manner de Expositione Missae (c. A.D. 840), 
uses language which certainly implies the permanence 
after consecration of the outward elements ”. 


not by Alcuin. Mabillon has not noticed that part iv. 1-7 is a patchwork 
made up from the de Exfositione Afissae of Florus of Lyons (P. ZL. exix. 
p- 15: see cc. 6, 17, 58-60, 62-3, 66-7). It appears plainly that Florus’ 
work is the original, and not wzce versa. Also it will be noticed that Florus 
gives his authorities (c. 1) and Alcuin is not among them, while the author 
of the Cozfesszo does not give his. The Cozfesszo further shows acquaintance 
with the hymn /Pange lingua (p. iii. c. 19), and the second half of part iii 
(cc. 23-42) is largely based upon [Boetius’] de Ade Catholica, incorporating 
lines I-12, 24-30, 51-61, 84-90, 224-230, 244-252. 

ocean lec. Of. ii, 24, 25 (2. L. cv. pp. 1141-2) ‘ Hie [at the conse- 
cration] credimus naturam simplicem panis et vini mixti verti in naturam 
rationabilem [spiritual], scilicet corporis et sanguinis Christi.’ ‘Credit 
[ecclesia] namque corpus et sanguinem Domini esse ac hoc morsu caelesti 
benedictione impleri animas sumentium.’ £7. 4 ad Rantgar. (p. 1334) 
‘ Nist manducaveritis carnem filtt hominis, etc., hoc est, nisi participes 
fueritis meae passionis et credideritis me mortuum pro vestra salute, non 
habebitis vitam in vobis.’ On the precedents for such an interpretation 
(not Augustine’s) see appended note C. 

* For his de Expos. Missae see also Hurter’s SS. Patr. Opusc. Selecta, vol. 
xxxix. His doctrine of the real presence in virtue of the invocation of the 
Holy Ghost on the elements and the use of the words of Christ’s institution 
(§§ 81-84) is very clear. In his Opuscula adv. Amalarium i. 9 (P. L. cxix. 
pp. 77, 78) he writes ‘ Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctae oblationis corpus est 
Christi, non materie vel specie visibili sed virtute et potentia spirituali. ... 
Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit 
ad haec offerentis ecclesiae fides, accedit mysticae precis consecratio, accedit 
divinae virtutis infusio; sicque mire et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter 
ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id 
est vitae et salutis nostrae mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei 
videmus obtentu: nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente 
credimus, libamus. . . . Mentis ergo est cibus ille, non ventris; non cor- 
rumpitur, sed manet in vitam aeternam, quoniam pie sumentibus confert 


236 Dissertations. 


A landmark in the history of eucharistic doctrine is 
the work of Paschasius Radbert ', de Corpore et Sanguine 
Domini, written about A.D. 831 when he was a simple 
monk of the older monastery of Corbey, and later, when 
he had become abbot of Corbey, about A.D. 844, pre- 
sented by him to Charles the Bald. Paschasius appears 
beyond all reasonable question to teach a doctrine of 
transubstantiation—that is, he teaches that the elements 
of bread and wine in the eucharist are at the moment 
when the priest pronounces the words of institution, by 
the power of Jesus Christ Himself and the operation of 
His Spirit, wholly and substantially converted into the 
true body and blood of Christ ; so that what exists upon 
the altar is henceforth only the body and blood though 
it remains under the ‘figure,’ appearance, and sensible 
attributes of bread and wine. This appearance and these 
attributes remain to test faith and to avoid the scandal 
and horror which would result from the consecrated 
elements appearing what they are. The conversion of 
the elements is thus not an open one: it is a mystery, 
not a manifest miracle. But the body is the very same 
as was born of Mary and was crucified and buried: and 
the truth of this is driven home by the record of a number 


vitam aeternam. Pie autem sumit qui spiritu fidei illuminatus in illo cibo 
et potu visibili virtutem intelligibilis gratiae esurit ac sitit. . . . Corpus 
igitur Christi, ut praedictum est, non est in specie visibili sed in virtute 
spirituali, nec inquinari potest faece corporea quod et animarum et corpo- 
rum vitia mundare consuevit.’ 

‘ There is, I think, some evidence for an influence of John of Damascus’ 
theology of the eucharist (de ide Orthodoxa iv. 13, Lequien i. p. 368) 
both upon the Ambrosian treatise de Sacramentis and upon Paschasius’ 
work. But the matter is complicated by the relation of the de Sacramentis 
to the de A/ysterizs also ascribed to St. Ambrose. 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 237 


of materialistic miracles, in which the hidden reality was 
made to appear in the form of the divine infant or as 
a bleeding limb of flesh. As against all rationalistic ob- 
jections Paschasius exults in the divine power which can 
do all it will, the originative power which can produce 
this new creation, according to the plain word and promise 
of the very Truth Himself, Jesus Christ. So far Paschasius 
speaks the language of transubstantiation in its full force, 
but he still regards the body and blood of the eucharist 
as purely spiritual, and thus—unlike the later opponents 
of Berengar and some of his own contemporaries 1— 
repudiates any attempt to bring it into connexion with 
the physical process of digestion, though it is uncertain 
whether he regards the bread and wine as retaining 
enough physical reality to admit of their being digested : 
moreover, he is still so far under the influence of 
Augustine as to use hesitating language on the question 
whether the wicked receive the spiritual realities in the 
holy communion. 

The following passages will illustrate the above state- 
ment (de Corp. et Sang. Domini, Patr. Lat. cxx. p. 1269): 


‘ Patet igitur quod nihil extra vel contra Dei voluntatem 
potest, sed cedunt illiomnia omnino. Et ideo nullus move- 
atur de hoc corpore Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio 
vera sit caro et verus sit sanguis, dum sic voluit ille qui 
creavit ; oma enim guaecunque voluit fecit in caelo et 


1 E.g. Rabanus Maurus (£/. ad Heribald. Episc. Antissiodor. 33 apud 
Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, Paris 1723, p.17, P. L.cx. p. 192; Gieseler, /.¢. ii. 
p 285 n.5) replies to the inquiry, ‘ utrum eucharistia, postquam consumitur 
et in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum, iterum redeat in naturam 
pristinam quam habuerat antequam in altari consecraretur ?’ Cf. Paschasius’ 
own reference to the ‘ apocryphal book’ quoted above, 


238 Dissertations. 


in terra; et quia voluit, licet in figura panis et vini 
maneat, haec sic esse omnino nihilque aliud quam caro 
Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt; 
unde ipsa veritas ad discipulos, Aaec, inquit, caro est 
mea pro mundi vita, et, ut mirabilius loquar, non alia 
plane quam quae nata est de Maria et passa in cruce et 
resurrexit de sepulchro.’ ; 

‘Veritas autem Deus est, et si Deus veritas est, quicquid 
Christus promisit in hoc mysterio utique verum est. 
Et ideo vera Christi caro et sanguis, quam qui manducat 
et bibit digne habet vitam aeternam in se manentem; 
sed visu corporeo et gustu propterea non demutantur, 
quatenus fides exerceatur ad iustitiam et ob meritum 
fidei merces in eo iustitiae consequatur’ (i. 2, 5). 


That after consecration there is ‘nihil aliud quam 
corpus et sanguis Domini’ is often repeated!, and 
expressions are used such as ‘corpus Christi et sanguis 
virtute Spiritus in verbo ipsius ex panis vinique sub- 
stantia efficitur’ (iv. 1). After consecration the bread 
and wine may only typically be so called as Christ is 
the Bread of Life (xvi). The act of consecration is 
regarded as a new creative act of God (xv. 1), of which 
the priest is only the minister. The reasons for the 
‘figura’ of bread and wine remaining are stated as 
above, and also (x. 1) because otherwise ‘durius esset 
contra consuetudinem humanam licet carnem salutis 
tamen carnem hominis Christi in speciem et colorem 
ipsius mutatam et vinum in cruorem conversum accipere’; 
cf. xill. 2 ‘si carnis species in his visibilis appareret, iam 
non fides esset aut mysterium sed fieret miraculum; quo 
aut fides nobis daretur, aut a perfidis exsecratio communi- 


A ee 11:76, Vill 2) le 2, oa ee eee 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 239 


cantibus importunior grassaretur.’ The record of miracles 
follows in ch. xiv. Of Paschasius’ more spiritual lan- 
‘guage the following is an example: ‘ Frivolum est ergo, 
sicut in eodem apocrypho libro legitur, in hoc mysterio 
cogitare de stercore, ne commisceatur in digestione alte- 
rius cibi. Denique ubi spiritualis esca et potus sumitur... 
quid commistionis habere poterit’ (xx. 3). On the recep- 
tion by the wicked see vi. 21. 

But Paschasius’ doctrine met with decided opposition. 
Rabanus Maurus, writing in 853, emphatically denies 
that the body of the eucharist is the same body as that 
in which Christ lived and died*.. He himself asserts an 


objective spiritual transformation® in the elements in 


1 Paschasius’ language about the relation of the eucharistic act to Christ’s 
sacrifice is well worth study, cap. xi. But we are not here concerned with 
the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice. 

2 Ep. ad Heribaid. 1. c. ‘Nam quidam nuper de ipso sacramento corporis 
et sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt, hoc ipsum esse corpus et 
sanguinem Domini quod de Maria virgine natum est et in quo ipse Dominus 
passus est in cruce et resurrexit de sepulchro. Cui errori quantum potuimus 
ad Eigilum abbatem scribentes, de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit 
aperuimus.’ (This letter is possibly that in Migne, P. Z. cxii. p. 1510; see 
c.2.) The opinion that the ‘body’ of the eucharist is different from Christ’s 
mortal body we shall see to have been held by Ratramn also. 

Among older fathers cf. the language of Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2. 19 
Serroy 5€ 7d aiua Tod Kupiov’ TO wey yap EoTW avTOD capKiKoY @ 77s pOopas 
AeAuTpwpeba, 70 5k TYEVpaTIKdY, TOVTéOTLY @ KExpiopeba’ Kal TOUT EoTe TLE 
7) aiva Tov “Inood THs Kupakys peradaBeiv apbapoias’ icxis 5 Tov AOyou 
7d mvedpa, ds aiua capkds. Jerome iz Lphes. i. 7 (ed. Vallars. vii. p. 553) 
‘ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa atque 
divina de qua ipse dixit caro mea vere est ctbus et sanguis meus vere est 
potus, et nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et sanguinem meam biberitis 
non habebitis vitam aeternam; vel caro et sanguis quae crucifixa est et 
qui militis effusus est lancea. Iuxta hance divisioneim et in sanctis eius 
diversitas sanguinis et carnis accipitur; ut alia sit caro quae visura est 
salutare Dei, alia caro et sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere.’ 

3 Liber de Sacris Ordinibus ete. (P. L. exii. p. 1185) ‘Quis unquam 
crederet quod panis in carnem potuisset converti vel vinum in sanguinem, 


240 Dssertations. 


virtue of consecration, so that they become the body and 
blood of Christ in a true and real sense: but he does not 
appear to distinguish between the ves and the virtus sacra- 
menti; and, in a word, he is still under the dominant 
influence of Augustine, whose words he repeats. 

But the main opponent of Paschasius’ doctrine was 
Ratramn, a monk of his own convent. The emperor 
Charles had addressed two questions to Ratramn, pre- 
sumably in common with other theologians’: (1) Whether 


nisi ipse Salvator diceret, qui panem et vinum creavit et omnia ex nihilo 
fecit.”. Dr. Hebert in his Lord's Supper : uninspired teaching Seeley & Co., 
1879) i. p. 614, quotes from RKabanus as follows—‘ panem communem 
accepit [Christus], sed benedicendo in longe aliud quam fuerat transmutat 
ut veraciter diceret sic, hoc est corpus meum :’ but his reference is, as so 
often, wrong and I cannot discover the passage. 

1 De Instit. Cler i. 3% (2 L. evii.'p. 317) * Huius rei sacramentum, “id 
est veritas corporis et sanguinis Christi, de mensa dominica assumitur qui- 
busdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa omni homini ad 
vitam, nulli ad exitium: quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacra- 
menti.? Again Dr. Herbert quotes ‘neque indignitas [indigne sumentis | 
dignitatem tantae consecrationis evacuare poterit: sed rem sacramenti non 
attingit [indignus] . . . idcirco nec effectus consequitur eiusdem sacramenti.’ 
But I cannot verify the reference. 

2 It has been supposed that Jolin Scotus Erigena was consulted and 
wrote a work on the eucharist. But this does not appear to be the case. 
The work ascribed to him by Berengar and the men of his period is in fact 
Ratramn’s’ work: see Pragati ‘ot TH. J. Floss in. 2. : 2%. exsdin pe sec 
Adrevaldus indeed, a contemporary, wrote a treatise (of which a fragment 
remains) de Corpore et Sanguine Christt contra ineptias Loannis Scoti; but 
this is sufficiently accounted for by what is still to be found in Erigena’s 
writings and what must have been found in the commentary on St. John vi, 
when it was entire. 

Erigena held that Christ in heaven was still man, in the sense that 
in Elis one substance He still possessed the zatwra and zatio of humanity, 
but transmuted into the Godhead and with it wdzguztous. Under these 
circumstances he might have anticipated the Lutheran doctrine of the 
eucharist and held that, in whatever sense He has a body at all, He is 
present with the same body in the eucharist. But in fact he held a very 
‘symbolical’ view of the eucharist, cf. Aaxpos. suger Hirerarch. Cael S. 


Dionys. 1. 3, where he inveighs against those ‘qui visibilem eucharisiiam 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 241 


the body and blood are present in the eucharist zy 
veritlate or iz mysterio? that is, as Ratramn ex- 
plains it, whether there is in the eucharist a reality 
apparent only to faith, hidden under earthly veils, or 
whether the divine reality is there without veils? 
(2) Whether the sacramental body is the very body born 
of Mary and now in heaven? It does not appear 
whether these questions were addressed to theologians 
as a result of the presentation of Paschasius’ treatise 
or no. Certainly the first question is not suggested by 
his position. But Ratramn’s own view, as distinct from 
Paschasius’, becomes quite plain in the process of his 
answer to both questions. He replies, like Paschasius, 
that the body and blood of Christ are present in the 
sacrament ‘in mystery, not ‘in truth,’ i.e. under veils 
of sense, not in unveiled manifestation. But, un- 
like Paschasius, he argues from this in a sense opposed 
to transubstantiation. The elements by consecration 
are ‘changed for the better’; they become what they 
were not, the veils of the body and blood. But this 
spiritual transformation does not affect their physical 
reality. In that respect they are not changed; they 
remain what they were. They symbolize in their natural 
reality the heavenly gift which they contain. The same 


nihil aliud significare praeter se ipsam volunt asserere (i.e. presumably 
those who said the consecrated elements were really the body and blood 
in themselves and not typical of something else] dum clarissime praefata 
tuba [sc. Dionysius] clamat non illa sacramenta visibilia colenda neque 
pro veritate amplexanda quia significativa veritatis sunt.’ 

His doctrine of Christ’s humanity can be found stated with great clearness 
in de Div. Nat. ii. 11, v. 38. He held that there underlies each man’s 
earthly body a secret ratio (or essence) of his coiporeity which is to be his 
‘spiritual body’ like that of the angels. 


R 


242 Dissertations. 


object or substance (ves) is both physically one thing 
and spiritually another. The following citations from 
his Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini' will make 
his position apparent : 


c.g ‘Ille panis qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi 
corpus conficitur aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit 
et aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius 
quidem panis quod ante fuerat forma praetenditur, color 
ostenditur, sapor accipitur: sed interius longe aliud multo 
pretiosius multoque excellentius intimatur, quia caeleste, 
quia divinum, id est Christi corpus, ostenditur quod non 
sensibus carnis sed animi fidelis contuitu vel aspicitur 
vel accipitur vel comeditur.’ 


But this involves no kind of change in what appears 
to the senses, no kind of physical change at all. 


cc. 12-15 ‘ Nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur, i.e. 
‘secundum veritatem species creaturae quae fuerat ante 
permansisse cognoscitur . .. nihil est hic permutatum 

.. si nihil permutationis pertulerint nihil aliud exsistunt 
quam quod prius fuere . . . corporaliter namque nihil 
in eis cernitur esse permutatum. Fatebuntur igitur 
necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam 
secundum corpus... aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, com- 
pelluntur negare corpus esse sanguinemque Christi [i.e. 
that any change has been made at all] quod nefas est 
non solum dicere verum etiam cogitare ”.’ 


Then comes the conclusion : 
c. 16 ‘At quia confitentur et corpus et sanguinem Dei 


oP. Lexx. pi F264. 

* Ratramn clearly draws no distinction between accidents apparent to 
the senses and substance: not to be changed sensibly is not to be changed 
corporally or in reality at all. 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 243 


esse, nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commuta- 
tione, neque iste commutatio corporaliter sed spiritualiter 
facta sit, necesse est iam ut figurate facta esse dicatur: 
quoniam sub velamento corporei panis corporeique vini 
spirituale corpus spiritualisque sanguis exsistit: non 
quod duarum sint exsistentiae rerum inter se diversarum, 
corporis videlicet et spiritus, verum una eademque res 
secundum aliud species panis et vini consistit, secundum 
aliud autem corpus est et sanguis Christi.’ 


Ratramn (like earlier writers) compares what occurs 
to the eucharistic elements with what occurs to the 
element of water in baptism in virtue of the con- 
secration of the priest (c. 17) ‘ Accessit sancti Spiritus 
per sacerdotis consecrationem virtus et efficax facta est 
non solum corpora verum etiam animas diluere et 
spirituales sordes spirituali potentia dimovere.’ 

He goes on to make a stronger comparison. Feeling 
forced by St. Paul’s words (1 Cor. x. 1-4) to suppose 
that the Jews had sacraments as full of spiritual reality 
as the Christians, he ascribes to the sea and the 
cloud, to the water from the rock and the manna, a real 
spiritual potency !. He even declares that the Jews in 
the wilderness ate the flesh of Christ and drank His 
blood, and that Christ by His divine power changed 
the manna into His body and the water into His blood 
with the same reality as in the eucharist of the Church, 
and he sees in this an anticipation only earlier than that 
which occurred when our Lord, before His actual sacri- 
fice, ‘was able to turn the substance of bread and 
the creature of wine into the body and blood’ of His 


1 Paschasius argues to the contrary effect (c. v.) 


R 2 


244 Dissertations. 


sacrifice (21-28). Curiously enough, it is at this point 
where the analogy of baptism and the Jewish sacraments 
might suggest that the only change in the eucharistic 
elements consists in their being endued with a spiritual 
significance and power, that Ratramn (for once) uses 
language suggestive of transubstantiation. By spiritual 
power and in a mystery we are to ‘understand that the 
bread and wine are really converted into the substance 
of Christ’s body and blood, to be received by the be- 
lievers’ (30). But this language is shown to go beyond 
his real mind by superabundant explanations under two 
heads: 

(1) That there is no change in the elements: 
secundum creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante 


¢ 


nam 


consecrationem hoc et postea consistunt’ (54); ‘in illo 
vel potu vel pane nihil corporaliter opinari sed totum 
spiritualiter sentire’ (58). The truth is not ‘ille panis et 
illud vinum Christus est,’ but ‘in illo sacramento Christus 
est’ (59). The wine is no more changed into the blood 
of Christ corporally than the mingled water which repre- 
sents the people is changed into the people: ‘at videmus 
in aqua secundum corpus nihil esse conversum’ (75). 

(2) He distinguishes between the historical actual 
visible body of Christ, which is now in heaven—the 
‘veritas carnis quam sumpserat de virgine’-—and_ the 
sacramental body—the ‘sacramentum carnis’—and that 
in the most emphatic way (57). In this connexion he 
seems to speak as if the presence in the sacrament 
were only a presence of the divine Spirit, or the Word 
of God: and as if ‘the sacrament were only called 
the body of Christ because the bread and wine make 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 245 


a new body for the divine Spirit or Word to operate 
through. ‘Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus.’ 
‘Patenter ostendit [| Ambrosius] secundum quod habeatur 
corpus Christi, videlicet secundum id quod sit in eo 
Spiritus Christi, i.e. divini potentia Verbi, quae non 
solum animam pascit verum etiam purgat!’ (61, 64, 
72). Again he speaks as if the bread were in no 
other sense Christ's natural heavenly body than it is 
the mystical body, that is the Christian people, which 
it also represents (73-74). 

This is the only really doubtful question in Ratramn’s 
doctrine: Is the unseen part in the sacrament merely 
the presence of the pure Spirit of God, or Word of 
God, as it were incarnating Himself in the bread to 
impart spiritual life to His people? or is it a presence 
of the incarnate and glorified Christ after a spiritual 
and heavenly manner? On this point St. Augustine 
leaves us in no doubt. The ‘inner part’ of the sacra- 
ment is the flesh and blood which have become ‘ spirit ’ 
and ‘life But Ratramn’s language leaves us in doubt 
as to what he held and taught on this point. He 
ends his treatise however with language stronger than 
that of the sections we have just been discussing, for 
he quotes and comments on words of the liturgy which 


1 There would be some support for this view in the language of Tertullian, 
see appended note D; in that of Clement (above, p. 239 n. 2) and Macarius 
Magnes (below, p. 304). It is generally associated with the misunderstand- 
ing of St. John vi. 63, as if that were intended to explain away what Christ had 
been saying just before, and to imply that ‘ eating the flesh’ of Christ and 
‘drinking His blood’ was only a metaphor for receiving His words, or that 
only His spirit, not His humanity, could be communicated to men. On 
the patristic interpretation of this passage see appended note C. 

# See above, p. 233 Ni. 


246 Dissertations. 


seem to assume that what we receive in the sacra- 
ment is the same as what we shall enjoy in heaven, 
only now under a veil and in a mystery, then unveiled 
and in manifest participation—‘prenus aeternae vitae 
capientes humiliter tmploramus ut quod in imagine con- 
tingimus sacramentt manifesta participatione sumamus 
(85 f.), and he concludes with the language of a true 
faith— 


‘ 


‘Nec ideo, quoniam ista dicimus, putetur in mysterio 
sacramenti corpus Domini vel sanguinem ipsius non a 
fidelibus sumi quando fides non quod oculus videt sed 
quod credit accipit: quoniam spiritualis est esca et 
spiritualis potus, spiritualiter animam pascens et aeternae 
satietatis vitam tribuens ; sicut ipse Salvator mysterium 
hoc commendans loquitur: Sferzzus est qui vivificat, nam 
caro nihil prodest.’ 


Paschasius Radbert was at pains to insist upon the 
identity of the sacramental and the real body of Christ, 
against those who, like Ratramn, would ‘weaken the 
force of Christ's own words', and his side of the con- 
troversy was taken by Hincmar of Rheims? and Haimo, 
bishop of Halberstadt”*. The statement of transubstan- 
tiation by the latter is very explicit. He denies that the 
consecrated elements can be called szgvs of the natural 


* See Expos. in Matt. xii, in xxvi. 26 (P. L. cxx. p. 890) ‘ Audiant qui 
volunt extenuare hoc verbum corporis.’ 

* de Cav. Vitits et Virt. Exerc. ad Carol. Calv. c. 10 (P. L.cxxv. p. 926). 
It is worth notice that he retains a doctrine of Fulgentius (7. Z.lxv. p. 391) 
and declares it to be beyond question that there is a participation of Christ’s 
body and blood in éaftism also—‘nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum’; so 
that baptized infants who die do not fall into the condemnation of John vi 
(p. 925). 

S Pe dey CXNIMI. 1D; B17: 


ZTransubstantiation and Nrhiliantsm. 247 


body of Christ, though they are signs of the mystical 
body ; and he writes thus of the consecration : 


‘Substantiam ergo panis et vini, quae super altare 
ponitur, fier’ corpus Christi et sanguinem per myste- 
rium sacerdotis et gratiarum actionem, Deo hoc operante 
divina gratia secreta potestate, nefandissimae demen- 
tiae est fidelibus mentibus dubitare. ... Commutat ergo 
invisibilis sacerdos suas visibiles creaturas in substan- 
tiam suae carnis et sanguinis secreta potestate. In quo 
quidem Christi corpore et sanguine propter sumentium 
horrorem sapor panis et vini remanet et figura, sub- 
stantiarum natura in corpus Christi et sanguinem omnino 
conversa; sed aliud renuntiant sensus carnis, aliud re- 
nuntiat fides mentis. Sensus carnis nihil aliud renuntiare 
possunt quam sentiunt ; intellectus autem mentis et fides 
veram Christi carnem et sanguinem renuntiat et con- 
fitetur, ut tanto magis coronam suae fidei recipiat et 
meritum, quanto magis credit ex integro quod omnino 
remotum est a sensibus carnis.... Nullum signum est 
illud cuius est signum; nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur 
signum sed alterius.’ 


And at this point the controversy remained till it was 
rekindled two centuries later in connexion with Berengar. 
We need not concern ourselves with the somewhat in- 
tricate details of the Berengarian controversy in the 
eleventh century. It is enough for us to know that 
Berengar’s teaching and ‘the book of John Scotus’ on 
which it was based—i.e. in fact Ratramn’s work, which 
was both by Berengar and his opponents ascribed to 
Scotus—were repeatedly condemned, and that the doctrine 
of transubstantiation became accepted as a dogma of the 
Church which it was heresy to deny, though the actual 


248 Dissertations. 


word transubstantiation does not occur in any ecclesi- 
astical decision till it was decreed by the Lateran Council 
in 1215. 

Nor again are we concerned with the task of passing 
moral judgements on the actors in the controversy. 
Berengar was not of the stuff of which martyrs are 
made, and more than once sought safety from his 
ecclesiastical opponents by repudiating his own beliefs. 
On the first of these occasions he accepted, if he did 
not subscribe to, a horribly materialistic formula of 
Cardinal Humbert’s, which will be noticed later on}. 
On the other hand, it must be admitted that he met 
with nothing like fair treatment from his opponents. 
This at least we may safely say ; and without entering 
further into the moral question, we may pass on to attempt 
to describe exactly what Berengar’s position was—judging 
of this chiefly from the recovered portion of his treatise 
de Sacra Coena*—and what the position of his opponents. 

On the whole Berengar reproduces, and with conscious- 
ness of his obligation *, the view of the book which he 
ascribed to John the Scot, and which was in fact the 


1 Lanfrane says that he subscribed to it (de Corp. et Sang. Domini 2, 
P.L. cl) ‘Tu vero acquiescens accepisti, legisti, confessus te ita credere 
iureiurando confirmasti, tandem manu propria subscripsisti.’ He himself 
denies that he subscribed to it or assented positively to it; but admits that 
he accepted it in silence (de S. Coena, pp. 25-6) ‘ Manu quod mendaciter ad 
te pervenit non subscripsi nam ut de consensu pronuntiarem meo nullus 
exegit; tantum timore praesentis iam mortis scriptum illud absque ulla 
conscientia mea iam factum manibus accepi’: cf. p. 74 ‘a protestatione 
veritatis et defensione mea obmutui.’ 

* My references are to the edition of A. F. and F. Th. Vischer, Berlin 1834. 
In this book we have Berengar’s mature view, which as he says (p. 44) 
was only gradually reached, through the discipline of persecution and pro- 
longed study. * de S. Coena, p. 36. 


Transubstantiation and Nthiliantsm. 249 


work of Ratramn. But his work differs markedly from 
Ratramn’s. He is much more controversial—being 
mainly occupied in repudiating transubstantiation rather 
than in elaborating a positive theory; and he is a thorough 
scholastic, fullof themethodsand termsof the new dialectic. 
His book indeed is important, as for other reasons, so for 
its place in scholasticism. The Church had not yet made 
up its mind to adopt the rising philosophy of the time. 
There was a great tendency on the part of ecclesiastics 
to glorify simple belief and to deprecate the attempt to 
understand Christian doctrines, or to meet all mental 
difficulties with a simple appeal to divine omnipotence !. 
Berengar contends then against his opponent Lanfranc 
for the legitimacy of dialectic. He had been accused of 
‘deserting authorities and taking refuge in dialectic?’ ; 
and he is not slow to reply that ‘to take refuge in 
dialectic through all obstacles is the mark of the best 
judgement ; because to take refuge in dialectic is to take 
refuge in reason, and he who does not take refuge there, 
seeing that it is in virtue of the possession of reason that 
man is made in the image of God, has deserted his own 
honour and cannot be renewed from day to day in the 
image of God.’ And he justifies this appeal to logic by 
the example of Augustine ®. 

Connected with the appeal to logic,as against authority 
pure and simple, is Berengar’s depreciation of majorities. 


1 See Hugh of Langres, de Corp. et Sang. Christi contra Berengar. (P. L. 
exlii) at the beginning, and Witmund (below, pp. 261-2), and references to 
Lanfranc in the following note. 

2p. 99, cf. p. 164 ‘Et primo illud non tacendum quod persuadere 
conaris quod ad mensam dominicam pertineat posse utiliter credi, non 
posse utiliter inquiri.’ pag as 2) 


250 Drssertations. 


He loves to recall the fact that in the African controversy 
about re-baptism in the third century ?, and in the Arian 
controversy in the fourth’, the majority went wrong 
and the maintainers of what proved to be the truth 
were but the few. Thus when he is confronted with 
the argument that the great majority held against him 
on the matter of the sacrament, and that this was 
a sign that he was in error, he replies that exactly the 
same argument from common belief would substantiate 
the doctrine that man is in the image of God in virtue 
of his physical shape, ‘ because all but a very few Chris- 
tians both hold this and have no doubt that it is to be 
held as a matter of Christian faith. Indeed, he confi- 
dently maintains that the people who hold with him 
about the eucharist are not fewer than those who hold 
the truth against Anthropomorphism °, 

Berengar then stands stiffly for the right of reason and 
against the mere force of majorities in religion; but he 
certainly is not behindhand in his appeal to ‘authentic 
scriptures ’—a phrase which in those days covered all 
authoritative writings, both the bible and the fathers +. 
On the whole he is critical and successful in his treat- 
ment of authorities: notably he argues with very 
damaging force against the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion from the language of the Canon of the Mass and 
other ancient prayers to be found in his day in what 


' PP: 27, 341 39) 44, 58. * ps 55. 

* pp. 54, 55. On the current Anthropomorphism see references in Gieseler, 
Eccl. Hist. ii. p. 391; especially the report which Ratherius, bishop of 
Verona, gives of its prevalence in the dioceses of Vicenza and Verona. 

* p. 277. The appeal behind fathers to Scripture as the ultimate 
criterion seems not at this period to have occurred to any one. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianitsm. 251 


he calls the ‘book of the Lord’s table’ (4éber mensalis)'. 
In his discussion of the meaning of patristic passages, 
there is one specially interesting passage in which he 
calls attention to a use of negatives which prevails not 
only in the fathers, but in Scripture and common speech’. 
A thing is said absolutely zo¢ to be that which from the 
present point of view is not of importance in comparison 
with something else of much more importance which it is 
or has become and which it is desirable to emphasize. 
A certain Gerald, he instances, has become a bishop, 
and is yet conducting himself improperly. What 
could be more in accordance with custom than to repri- 
mand him by reminding him that he is ‘no longer 
Gerald, but a bishop’? He multiplies instances of 
a similar mode of speech from the bible and the 
fathers, on other topics than the eucharist. ‘I am 
a worm and zo maz’; ‘my doctrine is zof mine’; ‘who 
were born zot of blood, nor of the will of man’; ‘it is 
no longer I that live’; ‘he is zot a Jew, which is one 


1 See p. 277. He quotes, p. 283, a collect for Christmas Day (still in 
use in the Roman Mass) Alunera nostra nativitatis hodiernae mistertis 
apta proveniant ; ut, sicut homo genitus idem refulsit Deus, sic nobis haec 
terrena substantia conferat quod divinum est; a collect which certainly 
suggests that the ¢errena substantia in the eucharist is as real as the 
homo in the Incarnation. P. 285, he quotes another prayer, the force of 
which is still more unmistakeable, and which is not, as far as I know, in 
present use: Gratias exhibemus tibit, Domine, quod etiam temporalem ac 
mutabilem creaturam, panem atque vinum, quae de mensa tua secundum 
corpus accipimus, ad salutem nobis animae valere instituisti ; praesta ut qui 
sacramenta accipimus, quod minus est (minus est enim stgnato Signum omne), 
beneficia potiora, sacramentorum res, in homine tnteriore sumamus ; gue per 
sacramenta, quod minus est, in corpore reficimur, per res sacramentorum, 
quod potius est, mente refictamur. 

2 p. 177 ‘Non desunt in communi oratione, non desunt in scripturis dicta 
quae merito conferantur istis beati Ambrosii dictis.’ 


252 Dissertations. 


outwardly.’ It is not then, he argues, fair to conclude 
that whenever a father says ‘the bread and wine after 
consecration are not bread and wine, but the body and 
blood of Christ, he is maintaining the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation :—the less fair when similar phrases are 
used about the water in baptism which no one supposes 
to cease to exist, and when there are other passages 
where the permanence of the bread and wine are plainly 
stated’. This argument really shows a thorough grasp 
of the situation. 

Philosophically Berengar’s denial of transubstantiation 
is a denial that accidents can subsist apart from their 
substance or subject, or attributes apart from that of 
which they are attributes. Nothing can be this or that 
(‘just” or *white’)\ when “it thas: ceased itseliat@loc: 
Logically indeed we distinguish substances from attributes 
or accidents, but this is merely notional. We can have 
no reason to believe that there is a substance which is 
separable from the qualities in which it consists 2. 
You say, he argues, that after consecration the subject or 
substance of bread is annihilated and another subject 


* pp. L777 ., ps Ly 2: 

2 p. 81 ‘nullo modo Socrates iustus erit, si Socratem esse non contingeret;’ 
92, 93, 171 ‘constat nulla ratione colorem videri, nisi contingat etiam col- 
oratum [a coloured substance] videri;’ 182 ‘ causa videndi coloris vel cuius- 
cunque quod in subiecto est, subiecti ipsius visio est, apud ipsam, quae 
Deus est, veritatem subiecti et eius quod in subiecto est, non sensu sed 
intellectu solo separabilium compactricem ;’ 195 ‘impossibile est secundum 
hanc ut dixi mutationem, corrupto subiecto, nen corrumpi quod erat in 
subiecto ;’ 211 ‘ quod secundum subiectum non sit, minime posse secundum 
accidens esse.” 

The commentary of Alexander of Hales on this argumentation is curious, 
see pars iv. qu. x. memb. v. art. iii. de comsecratione § I ‘minuit utilitatem 
meriti quia ponendo quod accidentia non possunt esse sine subiecto, 
innitendo rationibus humanis, meritum fidei minuitur.’ 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 253 


generated, viz. the body of Christ; but that this is 
invisible, so that you cannot see the body of Christ. 
Yes, he replies, you can, if the substance is that. You 
can see itas muchas you could ever see the old substance. 
What could you ever see of the bread except its visible 
qualities: and if you say the body of Christ now subsists 
under visible qualities, it is present, like the bread, 
visibly, tangibly, &c.1. It is just as visible as a white 
man would be were he to paint his face like a negro”. 
From this point of view, he presses his opponents with 
the materialism of their doctrine. ‘While you think 
to thrust me,’ he says to Lanfranc, ‘into the Mincio 
(of heresy); you yourself are rushing into the Po (of 
materialism) *.’ If the body of Christ is, as you affirm, 
—and as he himself had been made to declare by 
Cardinal Humbert—corpforally present in the eucharist, 
what must be there is not the whole body, but a portion 
of the body. For what is corporally present is locally 
present; and if the body is locally present, whole and 
undivided, and is so consumed, on one altar, it cannot 
be locally present on a million other altars and in 
heaven *. (Indeed he again and again affirms what, as 
we shall see, is not antecedently improbable—that 
Cardinal Humbert, and even Lanfranc, held the view 
that what was present in the sacrament was a for- 
tiuncula carnis®.) But such a view is untenable: for 


\ pp b27, §44=5,. 202. 

2 p.127 ‘quia si supervestiatur facies tua colore Aethiopis necesse est 
faciem tuam videri, si colorem constiterit videri.’ 

Hs. ULo2. ch. p. 42. * py 10S te 

5 p. 81 ‘ Humbertus ille tuus . .. qui in sacrificio ecclesiae nihil aliud quam 
portiunculam carnis sensualiter et sanguinis post consecrationem superesse 


o54 Dissertations. 


the body of Christ is indivisible and does not admit of 
partition’. Nor is it conceivable that (as Humbert’s 
formula expressly asserted) the body of Christ, incor- 
ruptible and immortal, can be broken by the hand of the 
priest or pressed by the teeth of the communicants ”. 
Once more, he inveighs against the idea that in the 
consecration of the eucharist there is a production of 
a substance (generatio subiecti), i.e. of the body of Christ. 
For that body already exists, one and indivisible, and 
how can what already exists be produced ?? 

On the whole, in view of the then current doctrine of 
transubstantiation, Berengar’s logic is, if pitiless, morally 
as justifiable and successful as his appeal to authority. 


As has been said, Berengar is mainly occupied, in 


confirmat’; cf. p. 200 ‘scribis [i.e. Lanfranc] fieri in altari portiunculam 
carnis per generationem subiecti.’ 

Pp. 158. 

2 pp. 118, 199 ‘Constabit nihilominus eum qui opinetur Christi corpus 
caelo devocatum adesse sensualiter in altari ipsum se deicere quod vecor- 
dium est, dum confirmat se manu frangere, dente atterere Christi corpus, 
quod tamen ipsum negare non possit impassibile esse et incorruptibile.’ 

% p. 163 ‘Non quia corpus Christi et sanguis possint vel in toto vel in 
parte nunc esse incipere secundum generationem subiecti, quia Christi corpus 
per mille annos iam exsistens nullo modo nunc esse incipere, nullo modo 
potest nunc generari.’ This ‘creationist’ language about the miracle of 
transubstantiation is still used by Alger, de Sacr. Corp. et Sang. Dom. i. 16. 
112, and others. There is, however, another kind of language by which the 
bread and wine are said to be ‘ transposed into’ or ‘ pass into’ the body of 
Christ. Thus ‘si creaturas quas de nihilo potuit creare, has ipsas multo 
magis valeat in excellentioris naturae dignitatem convertere et in sui corporis 
substantiam transfundere’ (Fulbert of Chartres, P. Z. cxli. p. 204). A later 
scholastic controversy arose, and still subsists, as between these theories 
of an actto productiva and an actio adductiva, see Lessius de Perfect. 
Divin. xii. 16. §§ 114-119. He decides for the former, ‘ verius igitur mihi 
semper visum, Christi corpus poni sub speciebus per actionem productivam, 
quam replicationem vel reproductionem vel collationem eiusdem esse sub- 
stantialis appellare possumus.’ . 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 255 


the portion of his late controversial work which remains 
to us, in controversial negations. His own positive view 
is not elaborated. Certainly however he appears—like 
Ratramn—to have held to the doctrine of a real objec- 
tive, but spiritual, presence in the elements in virtue 
of consecration. Thus he distinguishes different kinds 
of ‘conversion’ or change, and affirms of the elements 
a conversion which while it leaves them what they were 
makes them something they were not'. This he con- 
stantly affirms is the character of divine benediction— 
not to destroy but to raise to a higher power”. Again, 
if he asserts that the bread and wine after consecration 
are still signs, he expressly distinguishes kinds of signs *. 
The bread and wine, he says, are signs of an existing 
reality, and not only existing but actually present with 
the signs, for the ves sacramenti necessarily attends 
the sacramentum*. Like others however he certainly 
denies that the wicked receive the body and blood of 
Christ®; he assimilates, again like others, the eucharistic 
cift to that of baptism®; and at times he seems to 
pass from a ‘spiritual’ to a merely ‘memorial’ view of 


1 ps HON. 

2 p. 163 ‘per consecrationem, inquam, quod nemo interpretari poterit 
per subiecti corraptionem ;’ p. 116 ‘omne quod sacretur necessario in 
melius provehi, minime absumi per corruptionem subiecti.’ 

3 p. 43 ‘Non interesse nihil inter figuram vel signum rei quae nunquam 
fuit, rei nondum exhibitae pronunciatoriam, et figuram vel signum rei 
exsistentis, rei iam exhibitae commonefactoriam.’ 

* p. 43 ‘Constat enim, ubi fit sacramentum, nulla posse non esse ratione 
rem quoque sacramenti.’ 

5 p. 89: thus he glosses 1 Cor. xi. 29 ‘not discerning the body’ as ‘ not 
discerning the sacrament of the body’; and (p. 278) he lays stress on the 
phrase of the invocation—that the bread and wine may become ‘/o us’ the 
body and the blood of Christ. 

6 p, 128 ‘ per omnia comparabili.’ 


256 Dissertations. 


the eucharistic elements'. It must be remembered that 
in the language of the day zzéellectualis and spiritualis 
were synonyms. A ‘spiritual’ presence would also be 
called ‘intellectual’; and that could easily mean a pre- 
sence only in the intelligence or memory ”. 

On the whole however, I repeat, his language is plain 
for the real presence ; for example: 


‘Hic ego inquio: certissimum habete dicere me, 
panem atque vinum altaris post consecrationem Christi 
esse revera corpus et sanguinem %,’ 

‘Panis autem et vinum, attestante hoc omni scriptura, 
per consecrationem convertuntur in Christi carnem et 
sanguinem, constatque omne quod consecretur, omne 
cui a Deo. benedicatur, non absumi, non auferri, non 
destrui, sed manere et in melius quam erat necessario 
provehi *.’ 


But Berengar’s opponents would not be conciliated by 
any belief in the real presence, however distinct, that was 
combined with a belief in the permanence of the out- 
ward substances of bread and wine. Transubstantiation 
was held at that time in the Church both fanatically 


1 p. 222 § Exigit ut ipsum eundem Christi sanguinem semper in memoria 
habens in eo, quasi in viatico ad conficiendum vitae huius iter, interioris 
tui vitam constituas sicut exterioris tui vitam in exterioribus constituis cibis 
et potibus.’ 

* See for this transition of thought one of Berengar’s earliest opponents, 
Hugh of Langres, de Corp. et Sang. Chr. con. Berengar. (P. L. cxlii. p. 1327) 
‘Corpus quod dixeras crucifixum intellectuale constituis. In quo evident- 
issime patet quod incorporeum confiteris. Qua in re universalem ecclesiam 
scandalizas . . . si quod adiunctum est sola fit intellectus potentia, revera 
non capitur quomodo, vel unde, vel idem sit quod adhuc non subsistit. Est 
enim intellectus essentiarum discussor non opifex, iudex non institutor. Et 
quamvis rerum vel monstret vel figuret imagines, nullum corpus materiali 
producit exordio.’ 

ps 51. * p. 248; cf. below, p. 259 n 2. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 257 


and materialistically. The plainest witness to this is the 
confession of faith already referred to, which was drawn 
up by Cardinal Humbert and forced upon Berengar 
at Rome, in the presence of Pope Nicholas and other 
bishops, in the year 1059. This, first negatively by way 
of recantation and then positively by way of affirma- 
tion, asserts under anathema that ‘ The bread and wine 
after consecration are not only a sacrament but also the 
true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and are 
sensibly, not only in a sacrament but in truth, touched 
and broken by the hands of the priests and pressed by 
the teeth of the faithful. The sense of the passage as 
a whole leaves no doubt that it is the body and blood 
which are declared to be the subject of the physical acts 
mentioned. 

This appalling decree is as follows !: 

‘Ego Berengarius, indignus diaconus ecclesiae sancti 
Mauricii Andegavensis, cognoscens veram catholicam 
et apostolicam fidem, anathematizo omnem haeresim, 
praecipue eam de qua hactenus infamatus sum, quae 
astruere conatur panem et vinum, quae in altari ponun- 
tur, post consecrationem solummodo sacramentum et 
non verum corpus et sanguinem domini nostri Iesu 
Christi esse, nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo sacramento 
manibus sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium 
dentibus atteri. Consentio autem sanctae Romanae et 
apostolicae sedi, et ore et corde profiteor de sacra- 
mento dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere, quam 


1 See Lanfranc, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. 2. Mansi, Conczl. xix. p. Coo. 
At a later date (1078) Berengar signed a profession which went no further 
than affirming the substantial conversion of the elements into the true flesh 
and blood. But this was when Hildebrand (Gregory VII) was pope, who, 
first as papal legate at Tours (1054) and all along. had gone as far as he 
could venture in support of Berengar. 


S 


258 Dissertations. 


dominus et venerabilis papa Nicolaus et haec sancta 
synodus auctoritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam 
tradidit mihique firmavit: scilicet panem et vinum, quae 
in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacra- 
mentum sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem domint 
nostri Iesu Christi esse, et sensualiter non solum sacra- 
mento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari et 
frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri: iurans per sanctam 
et homoousion Trinitatem et per haec_ sacrosancta 
Christi evangelia. Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem 
venerint cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis aeterno 
anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego ipse 
aliquando aliquid contra haec sentire ac praedicare 
praesumpsero, subiaceam canonum severitati. Lecto 
et perlecto sponte subscripsi.’ 


It is very noticeable that both Lanfranc and Hugh of 
Langres, who wrote against Berengar, while on the one 
hand they misinterpret Berengar as asserting a bare 
memorial of Christ in the holy eucharist', on the 
other defend implicitly such language as that of the 
decree, affirming that the body and blood of Christ 
are physically eaten by the communicant, though they 
are not thereby subject to corruption and diminution ”. 

The most considerable theological effort against 
Berengar is the treatise de Corporis et Sanguinis Christi 


1 See Lanfranc, /. c. cap. 22, and Hugh, as cited above. 

2 Hugh, /.c. ‘putas non bene intelligens attrita quaeque consequenter cor- 
rumpi.’ Lanfranc (/. c. c. 2) quotes with the highest expression of approval 
Humbert’s decree; cf. also c. 17: the announced faith and teaching of 
the Church is ‘carnem et sanguinem domini nostri Iesu Christi et ore 
corporis et ore cordis, hoc est corporaliter ac spiritualiter manducari et 
bibi.. Both Hugh and Lanfranc meet the argument that what is contin- 
ually eaten must diminish by an appeal to the physical miracle of the 
widow of Zarephath’s oil; and demand an act of faith, without reasoning, 
in the inscrutable action of divine power. 


Transubstantiation and Nithilianism. 259 


Veritate, by Witmund (Guitmundus) a Norman, who, 
after declining to accept an English bishopric under 
William the Conqueror, was afterwards made archbishop 
of Aversa in Italy. This treatise, written apparently in 
Normandy between the years 1to6o0 and 1078, is our 
fullest source of information for the theological feeling of 
the majority of the Church during the Berengarian con- 
troversy '. Witmund begins by recognizing two distinct 
beliefs among the Berengarians?: some of them hold- 
ing a merely symbolical view of the eucharist, others 
a doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood 
in the substances of bread and wine—which latter view 
he calls zmpanatio and invinatio. Both views alike how- 
ever fall under condemnation for denying the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, and to this therefore he first applies 
himself. He conceives the change in the elements to 
be such as causes them to become in physical reality 
the body and blood of Christ, only under the remaining 
accidents of bread and wine. He does not shrink from 
the idea that Christ’s body is pressed by the teeth of 
communicants °, or even of animals*, for it lay in the 


' It has been recently reprinted (with approbation) in SS. Patr. Opusc. Sel. 
vol. xxxvili, from which I quote it. 

2 i, 8 ‘ Berengariani omnes in hoc conveniunt quia panis et vinum essen- 
tialiter non mutantur, sed ut extorquere a quibusdam potui multum in hoe 
differunt, quod alii nihil omnino de corpore et sanguine Domini sacramentis 
istis inesse, sed tantummodo umbras haec et figuras esse dicunt. Alii vero 
rectis ecclesiae rationibus cedentes, nec tamen a stultitia recedentes, ut quasi 
aliquo modo nobiscum esse videantur, dicunt ibi corpus et sanguinem 
Domini revera sed latenter contineri et ut sumi possint quodammodo, ut ita 
dixerim, impanari. Et hanc ipsius Berengarii subtiliorem esse sententiam 
aiunt.’ 

3 i. 10 ‘Quare non possit dentibus premi, qui manibus Thomae et post 
resurrectionem potuit attrectari?’ 

* ii. 7,8. Or (as a prior alternative) angels may have carried off the 


S 2 


260 Dissertations. 


tomb and after the resurrection it both trode the earth and 
was touched by the hand of Thomas. Indeed nothing 
physical can defile it. Nor does he shrink from holding 
it possible that Christ may divide His body and blood 
in portions to the faithful’, though it may also remain 
undivided and entire in every particle of every host? 
But he does deny that the flesh and blood of Christ 
are liable to violence or corruption *: that is (so physical 
is his conception of transubstantiation) he denies that 
the consecrated elements are liable to natural putrefac- 
tion*. They may seem so to the eye of the disobedient 
and unbelieving, who have misused them for purposes 
of incredulous inquiry; but the senses are delusive, and 
allowed to be delusive for the punishment of presump- 
tion, unless indeed they can be turned to account to 
win the merit of a faith contrary to their evidence®. He 
denies that the elements are the subjects of the ordinary 


sacramental realities, and they may have been only in appearance devoured 
by animals, ‘a muribus corrodi vel consumi.’ This appears to have been 
a frequent occurrence, see Abelard, P. Z. clxxviii. pp. 1743-4 ‘De hoc 
quod negligentia ministrorum evenire solet, quod scilicet mures videntur 
rodere et in ore portare corpus illud, quaeri solet: sed dicimus quod Deus 
illud non dimittit ibi ut a tam turpi animali tractetur, sed tamen remanet 
ibi forma ad negligentiam ministrorum corrigendam.’ Cf. Peter Lombard, 
quoted below, p. 268 n.1. Cf. among the Greeks, Pseudo-John Damasce. 
de Corp. et Sang. Chr. cap. 5 (Lequien, i. p. 659). 

' 1. 15 ‘Ut corpus suum per partes ipse dividere possit, . . . quis impossibile 
hoc audeat aestimare ?’ 

2 i. 16-18. a. 15: 

* ii. 2 ‘Nobis enim panis ille Dei caelestis, illa eucharistia, divinum 
illud manna, quod immaculati agni carnem impassibilem factam de sacris 
altaribus sumimus, per quod et vivimus et a corruptione sanamur, nunquam 
putrescit.’ 

° ii. 3 ‘ Aut certe fidei eius soliditas copiosius remuneranda comprobetur, 
quod contra id etiam quod oculus cernit de rebus ac potentia Domini sui et 
communi ecclesiae fide non dubitarit.’ 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 6, 


processes of digestion: ‘cibum incorruptibilem, quod 
est corpus Domini, cum a mortalibus editur, secessus 
necessitatem pati, nefas est arbitrari!.’ If any priest has 
been so wicked or simple as to consecrate bread in 
quantities to allow of its relation to nourishment and 
digestion being tested, either his unbelief may have 
made his consecration invalid*, or some other food 
may have been substituted at the moment of reception, 
whether by angels to protect the sacred things or by 
devils to deceive the sinner °. 

Again if it is said that according to some ecclesiastical 
canons the consecrated hosts are in certain cases to be 
committed to the flames—if this be done in fact, we 
must believe that they are allowed to appear to be con- 
sumed as far as the remaining accidents of the previous 
substance are concerned, while the thing itself is only 
‘committed to the pure element to be concealed and 
straightway restored to the heavenly seats *.’ 

Witmund seeks physical analogies for the miracle of 
transubstantiation so far as to suggest that bread and 
wine become our own flesh and blood °; that our voice, 
the vesture of our thought, imparts itself undivided to 
all hearers ; that our ‘anima’ is undivided in all parts 
of our body®. But he dwells more on the obligation 
to believe mysteries. All creatures of God are in fact 
inexplicable miracles‘; the senses are fallible, and 

pe eee 

2 ii. 18 ‘Non enim nisi apud eos, qui verba Christi per virtutem divinam 


tantae rei operatoria esse credunt, panem et vinum in carnem et sanguinem 
Domini transire necessario credimus.’ In this belief, however, Witmund 
stands alone. 

Sit 1S. =: 4G; ina ie Oe 

7 i. 20 ‘omnes creaturae Dei miracula nobis inexplicabilia sunt’; iii. 22 


262 Dissertations. 


simple faith in the omnipotence and word of God is 
aduty*. ) 

Then he proceeds to argue with the wmbratici—so 
he calls the Berengarians—on the matter of authority. 
Doing violence to manifold statements of the fathers he 
is inclined to deny that the consecrated elements are ever 
called the ‘sacraments”’ (szgza) of the body and blood, 
though, if they are, he insists that a sign can be also 
that of which it isa sign. But on the whole he is very 
unsatisfactory in this part of his subject *. Nor is he more 
satisfactory when he proceeds to discuss the theory which 
he calls zazpanatio and invinatio*. He explains away what 
is against him or ignores it—for instance the statement of 
Ambrose ‘ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur®’; 
and he makes much of the catholic character of his 
doctrine as against the local character of the Berengarian 
view °, The Catholic Church is the kingdom of heaven 
which has succeeded to the empire of Rome, according 
to Daniel’s prophecy,—for a visible proof of which the — 
Church of the Lateran has taken the place of the palace 
of the Caesars—and this Church with its pontiffs has 
condemned Berengar’. He ends up his treatise with a 
discussion of two curious views which he had mentioned 
at the beginning as existing among opponents of 
Berengar, who still found offence in the doctrine that the 
wicked receive the body and blood of Christ’. The 
first view is that by divine providence it is secured that 
‘nulla omnino res sine miraculo fit.’ This fact (by a vague use of the word 
miracle) is used to justify belief in ‘miracles of the host.’ 

PA Aiy Gey Beer es mae | Shits 20 We, 

AS re We ae Rae pe © Til. 40; 

1 iii, 42. 5 i. 8. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 263 


those hosts which the wicked are to receive shall not 
be transubstantiated ; the second, that when unworthy 
communicants approach the altar, the hosts they are to 
receive are re-transubstantiated into bread and wine. 
Against both these theories Witmund holds decisively 
that the wicked do eat corporally, though not spiritually, 
the body and blood of Christ !. 

Opinions similar to those of Witmund appear in 
the contemporary—perhaps slightly earlier—tract of 
Durandus, the first abbot of the monastery of St. Martin 
of Troarn in the diocese of Bayeux. Writing against 
the Berengarians 7—whom he calls the ‘moderni dogma- 
tistae responsalesque Satanae ’—he regards the belief in 
the physical corruption and digestion of the sacramental 
elements as a mere result of their heresy *. He himself 
argues from the language of our Lord—‘ He that eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and 
/ in him’—that the sacramental gift is permanent and 
not transitory; and this means to his mind that the 
sacramental elements cease at their consecration to 
retain their material properties and at their reception 
also their material appearances: ‘ubi, he says (i.e. in 
the words of Christ just referred to), ‘ut cunctis sanum 
sapientibus patenter liquet, non digestionis obscenitas 
sed divinae per sacramentum mansionis repromittitur 
negotium fidelibus: ac proinde divinum mysterium 

1 i.4oi ff, 

2 Liber de Corp. et Sang. Christi, P. L. cxlix. p. 1375. Durandus does 
not exhibit so accurate a knowledge of the opinions of the Berengarians as 


Witmund. He regards them as simply affirming a figurative interpretation 


of the eucharist. 
. e] 
8 1c. p. 1377 ¢ ‘quodque consequitur eorumdem sacramentorum corruptela. 


264 Dssertations. 


fideliter atque competenter acceptum, et in id quod 
iam ex parte erat ab eo quod adhuc visui subiacebat 
exteriori divinitus ex toto transformatum, sumentium 
quoque animas mentesque sanctificat!.’ 

These discussions are very disagreeable ; but I have 
thought it worth while to describe these tracts at some 
length, because, taken with the other writings against 
Berengar which remain to us from the eleventh century, 
they force us to bear in mind that, however much later 
scholastics may have refined the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation, in its original form as held and pressed upon 
the ‘heretics’ it was of a plainly materialistic and super- 
stitious character. 

The influence of Berengar’s teaching did not rapidly 
pass away”. The writers of the earlier part of the twelfth 
century are still occupying themselves with the doctrine 
of transubstantiation. Thus Alger,a canon and scholastic 
of Liege who died about 1130, wrote a work de Sacra- 
mentis Corporis et Sanguinis Dominici *, which obtained 
so great a reputation that it was said by Peter the Vener- 
able ‘to leave nothing for even the most scrupulous reader 
even to desire.’ It is closely akin to Witmund’s work. 
The doctrine of transubstantiation is so fully held asa 
physical miracle *, producing a local ® presence of Christ, 
that that which is on the altar can only be called a sacra- 


' dc. p. 1379 b; cf. 1382 a ‘nimis videtur absurdum et a re ipsa 
decernitur alienum ut, ubi Christus percipitur, de stercore cogitetur.’ 

* See the quotation from Zacharias, perhaps of Besancon, c. 1157, in 
Gieseler, Zccl, ist, iiwp, Bia. 

* Recently reprinted in SS. Patr. Opusc. Sel. vol. xxiii; see p. 55. 

* i, 8 (50) ‘non solum pro sacramento sed et pro miraculo.’ 

Bol, (3). 


LTransubstantiation and Nthilianism. 26s 


ment of Christ, in the sense that Christ there hidden under 
the accidents of a vanished substance is a sacrament of 
Christ unveiled in heaven!. Like Witmund, he denies 
that the consecrated species are corruptible or the subjects 
of digestion, and thinks that the consideration that only 
moral evil is in God’s sight impure, coupled with the 
consideration of possible angelic interpositions, prevents 
a Catholic from feeling a difficulty about the accidents 
which may befal the sacred species in being devoured 
by animals”. 

Perhaps a few years later Gregory of Bergamo, under 
the stress of a revival of Berengarianism, wrote his 
Tractatus de Veritate Corporis Christi *. This little book 
is interesting because in it we have what appears to be 
the first explicit enumeration of the sacraments as seven. 
Hitherto the sacraments had been commonly reckoned 
as three, viz. baptism, chrism, and the eucharist. These 
now rank as chief, and among them baptism and the 
eucharist are pre-eminent as ordained by Christ Himself, 


hists: (122-6); 

2 See ii. I (4) ‘Sed et cum de ceteris sacramentalibus speciebus, columba 
scilicet et igne in quibus sanctus Spiritus apparuit, Augustinus contra 
Maximinum dicat quia corporales illae species, peracto significationis officio, 
transierunt et esse ulterius destiterunt, nihil indignius de his corporalibus 
speciebus quae Christi contegunt corpus est sentiendum.’ (14) ‘ Non solum 
corpori Christi sed et ipsi sacramento visibili eadem causa mucorem 
negamus et putredinem, qua superius digestionem, quia cum illae species 
sine panis et vini substantia sint, quomodo mucescere et putrescere magis 
quam digeri possint, non facilis patet causa.’ (15) ‘Cum enim praeter 
peccatum creatori, qui ubique est, omnia munda sint, quomodo videtur 
immundius esse in ventre muris quam in ventre adulteri impoenitentis ?’ 
(13) ‘Sic est alia multa in hoc spirituali sacramento invisibiliter fieri 
credenda sunt angelico ministerio.’ 

3 This tract, printed for the first time in 1877, is to be found in SS. Paér. 
Ofusc. Sel. xxxix. 


266 Dissertations. 


while four other ‘older’ sacraments are added to the list, 
viz. ordination, marriage, holy Scripture, and the taking 
an oath'. Again Gregory emphasizes the distinc- 
tion of the ves from the virtus sacramenti in baptism 
no less than in the eucharist, the res being the ‘ thing 
signified,’ i.e. in baptism the death, burial, and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. When he comes to apply this 
to the eucharist, significantly enough he makes the out- 
ward part, or sacramentum, to be the body and blood of 
Christ present in virtue of transubstantiation and the res 
to be the mystical body the Church « . Insthe: Bzzuzs 
Tractatus of Hildebert (finally Metropolitan of Tours) 
de Sacramento Altaris® of about the same date the 
doctrine of transubstantiation is scholastically defined, 
but—possibly because he had been at one time Berengar’s 
pupil—the effort after spirituality of conception is much 
more noticeable. The eucharist is said to be ‘ the food 
of the inner man; not human, but divine, entering 
spiritually and divinely into the spirit ; not converting 

* c. 13 ‘haec numero adimplentur septenario.’ 14 ‘ Tria siquidem in 
ecclesia gerimus sacramenta quae sacramentis aliis putantur non immerito 
digniora, scilicet baptismum, chrisma, corpus et sanguis Domini. Quorum 
trium primum et ultimum ex ipsius Redemptoris institutione percepimus, ex 
apostolica vero traditione illud quod medium posuimus. Sunt praeterea 
quaedam alia quae videntur velut antiquiora sacramenta, videlicet sacerdotis 
ordinatio, legitimum coniugium, sacramenta quandoque dicuntur scrip- 
turarum et iusiurandi sacramentum.’ 

* c. 18 ‘Apparet ergo corpus et sanguinem Salvatoris sacramentum rite 
exsistere, non tantum per id solum quod interius veraciter esse creditur, 
sed per exteriorem panis vinique speciem quae cernentium oculis reprae- 
sentantur.’ 

° SS. Patr. Opusc. Sel. xxxix. p. 274 f. He is perhaps the first to 
affirm that the entire Christ is in either sfectes taken by itself: de Coena 
Dom. P. L. c\xxi. p. 535 ‘in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum, verum 


Deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum.’ Cf. Anselm, 
LPP, 1, 107, 2. Li. Clizep. 255: 


Transubstantiation and Nrhilianism. 267 


itself into spirit, but feeding the spirit in a spiritual and 
divine manner, entering spiritually, operating spiritually, 
coming by a spiritual way from heaven and by a spiritual 
way returning thither.’ The body of Christ is ‘in one 
place only after a bodily manner, in many places after 
a spiritual manner. For it is not of a body to be in 
many places at once*.’ 

The same tendency to shrink from the more material- 
istic statement of transubstantiation is apparent in the 
great work—the Books of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, 
dating from about the middle of the twelfth century. 
He repudiates the actual fraction of the body of Christ 
in the sacrament, as asserted in Berengar’s confession 
and admitted by Witmund and other opponents of his 
doctrine. Nor will he admit, with Abelard, a fraction 
which is in appearance only and not in reality. He 
decides that the more probable opinion is that there is 
a real fraction of the species of bread, i.e. in other 
words, he attributes more reality to the bread, at least 
so much substantiality as admits of its being broken 
without the heavenly substance being involved in it *. 
This is the doctrine which prevails in later theology *. 
Again, Peter Lombard refuses to decide whether the 


kaki oman 8 cs ile 

3 lib. iv. dist. 12. So St. Anselm before him had said (2. ¢. p. 256) 
‘ Secundum speciem remanentem quaedam ibi fiunt quae nullo modo secun- 
dum hoc quod est possunt fieri, scilicet quod atteritur, quod uno loco 
concluditur et a soricibus roditur et in ventrem traicitur.’ 

* See St. Thomas Aquinas, Sama, p. iii. qu.77- art. 7. He also holds 
that the species can be corrupted (art. 4), and can nourish (art. 6): and 
this is the Tridentine doctrine. See the Catechism of the Council, part ii, 
de Eucharistia, qu. 64, where one reason given for withholding the chalice 
from the laity is that the sfecées of wine, if reserved for the sick, might 
go sour. 


268 Dissertations. 


conversion of the elements into the body and blood of 
Christ is ‘substantial’ or of some other kind!. In both 
these respects and in his avoidance of other disagree- 
able decisions? he exhibits an appreciable withdrawal 
from the extreme materialism of the older writers. 

Beyond this point the matter shall not be pursued. 
The fourth Lateran Council of 1215—reckoned the 
twelfth ecumenical—defined the dogma in regard to 
the eucharist as follows: 


‘Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam 
nullus omnino salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos et 
sacrificium Iesus Christus: cuius corpus et sanguis in 
sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter 
continentur; transubstantiatis*® pane in corpus et vino in 
sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum myste- 
rium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo quod accipit ipse 
de nostro. Et hoc utique sacramentum nemo potest 
conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit ordinatus secundum 
claves ecclesiae, quas ipse concessit apostolis et eorum 
successoribus Iesus Christus *.’ 


Ped, 6. GIS: EE, 
* ¢Tilud etiam sane dici potest quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi 
non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat? 
Deus novit hoc’ (dist. 13). 
* The word ‘transubstantiare’ is first, apparently, found in Stephen of 
Autun (c. A.D. 1112-1139) 7vact. de Sacr. Alfaris,c.14 (P. L. clxxii. p. 1293). 
* Mansi, Cozcz2. xxii. p. 982. 


Transubstantiation and Nthilianism. 269 


IE: 


The metaphysical theory and philosophical 
principle involved. 


We have traced the history of the development of the 
dogma of transubstantiation. Taking it in its more 
refined form as now accepted in the Roman Church, it 
is open to three overwhelming objections: 

1. There is nothing to justify it, as distinguished from 
any other doctrine of the real presence, in the original 
Christian tradition or in the New Testament. 

2. It is involved in tremendous metaphysical difh- 
culties. 

3. It is contrary to the principle of the Incarnation— 
that is, to the principle of Christian theology. 


I. The first objection is supremely important. To 
state the case mildly—there is no idea or doctrine of 
the New Testament or of original Christianity, which 
requires the dogma of the annihilation of the natural 
species in the eucharist in order to protect it. And this 
fact at once distinguishes this dogma from such a dogma 
as that of the Zomoousion. On the other hand there is 
language in the New Testament—such as the repeated 
use of the term ‘bread’ of the consecrated element in 
t Cor. xi. 26-28—which is repugnant to it. But without 


270 Dissertations. 


here trespassing further upon the consideration of New 
Testament doctrine, I propose somewhat to develop 
the two last specified objections to the dogma of tran- 
substantiation. 

2. Metaphysically it is involved in tremendous diffi- 
culties. Let us take it as it is stated by a Roman writer 
of deserved repute in his own communion, the Jesuit 
Lessius, in his celebrated work de Perfectionibus Moribus- 
gue Divinis'. He finds that it involves twelve special 
‘miracles, using the word in its proper sense, for he 
says ‘quantum fieri potest, Deus causis utitur iam con- 
stitutis et ad miracula quasi invitus descendit.’ Of these 
the first is the destruction of the natural substances of 
bread and wine: the second is the reproduction and 
restoration of the same substances at the moment when, 
the process of digestion beginning, the divine presence is 
withdrawn and the former substances recur, though now in 
a condition of being digested: the third is the existence, 
in the interval during which the divine presence exists, 
of accidents inhering in no substance. Other miracles 
are found in the fact that these substance-less accidents 
can be acted upon and act physically as if they were 
really existent bread and wine. Enough: what an 
appalling burden of irrational metaphysics to lay upon 
the Christian conscience ! 

Lessius glories in these miracles; other Roman 
Catholic writers may withdraw them into the back- 
ground. But none can get rid of the fact that the 
doctrine of transubstantiation (i) postulates the existence 
of a ‘substance’ in each object distinct from all the 


A lib; xii. 6.16. 


Transubstantiation and Nihiliantsm. 271 


qualities by which it can make itself known—an hypo- 
thesis of which there could be no proof short of divine 
revelation, and which human thought has quite out- 
grown: (ii) postulates the annihilation of these unknow- 
able substances of bread and wine at a specified moment 
—again altogether without evidence as the annihilation 
is not supposed to make any ascertainable difference in 
the objects : (iii) granted the existence of substances as 
distinct from attributes, postulates a series of gratuitous 
miracles in the relations of the one to the other. 

And I must notice in passing that the materialistic 
conception of the sacrament, involved at best in the 
transubstantiation idea, has resulted in the doctrine, 
mentioned by Lessius and apparently universally 
accepted in the Roman Church!, that the divine gift 
given in this sacrament is only femporary. It is with- 
drawn as soon as the species begins to be digested. 
It is not a gift of permanent and spiritual divine in- 
habitation but a brief divine visit. ‘This day’ (so it is 
expressed devotionally) my Lord 


‘Came to my lowly tenement 
And stayed a whz/e with me.’ 


This doctrine is the direct result of the materialism 
involved in transubstantiation, and is contrary to the 
original and Christian idea that he that eateth Christ's 
flesh and drinketh His blood has ‘life in himself, ‘ eternal 


1 Cf, J. Perrone, S. J., Praelectiones Theologicaz (Turin, 1866), de 
Euchar. § 151, vol. viii. p. 146 ‘ Etenim cum species eo devenerint ut corpus 
sive materia dissolvi seu corrumpi deberet, cessante reali corporis Christi 
praesentia, Deus omnipotentia sua iterum producit materialem panis aut 
vini substantiam in eo statu quo naturaliter inveniretur si conyersio nulla 
praecessisset.’ 


272 Dissertations. 


life,’ ‘abides’ in Christ and Christ in him, ‘ lives for ever’ 
on account of the life of Christ the ‘living bread?!’ 

Moreover, it cannot be too emphatically stated that 
the dogma of transubstantiation involves the Church in 
the acceptance of a particular metaphysical theory in 
a sense in which the omoousion dogma does not. The 
word owsia (‘ substance, ‘essence, or ‘ being’) may be 
said to be metaphysical, but it represents an idea 
necessarily common to all metaphysical, and indeed to 
all human, thought. You must have some word to 
express that in virtue of which anything is called what 
it is called, or is what it is—its ‘being. And the 
homoousion dogma says no more than that the ‘ being’ 
of the Son is identical with the being of the Father, that 
in whatever sense the Father is God the Son is also 
God. We could not express it better to-day. Such 
phrases as ‘being’ and ‘person’ may be called meta- 
physical, but they belong to universal metaphysics. On 
the other hand, when you distinguish ‘substance’ or 
‘being’ from ‘accidents’ or ‘ qualities’ in each object, 
and postulate a separation of the two elements, you 
are using the terms of a particular metaphysical theory 
alien to common thought and transitory even in the 
metaphysical schools. All men at all times recognize 
the fact of grades and kinds of being. Only a few 
philosophers at special periods have imagined that the 
being of a thing is something distinct from the sum 
of its qualities, and they could hardly get a hearing in 
the philosophical world to-day. 

3. But it is an even more important objection that 


1 St. John vi. 53-59 [R. V.]. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 273 


this theory violates a central principle of Christian 
theology, viz. that the supernatural does not annihilate 
the natural. 

This principle received full attention when Gnosti- 
cism, in different forms, frankly repudiated it. Gnostic 
teachers could accept no incarnation, because they could 
not allow the thought that the Supreme could actually 
be united to a material and natural body. In different 
ways, for a similar reason, they repudiated the material 
ordinances of Christianity as vehicles of grace. Irenaeus 
says of some of them! that ‘in deprecation of all these 
[sacramental ordinances] they say that the mystery of 
the ineffable and invisible power ought not to be accom- 
plished through visible and corruptible creatures and 
(the mystery) of the inconceivable and_ incorporeal 
through sensible and corporeal things ; but that perfect 
redemption is simply the knowledge of the ineffable 
Greatness.’ 

In opposition to Gnosticism Irenaeus emphasizes the 
Christian principle that all things are of one substance: 
that there is no antagonism between the spiritual and 
the material or ‘the supernatural’ (as we call it) and the 
natural. Christ took a real human body just as He gives 
us His grace through real material substances. 


‘Our opinion is consonant with the eucharist and the 
eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him 
what are His own creatures, announcing harmoniously 


1 con, Haer. i. 21. 4 dAdo 5é TadTa TavTa TaparTnoapevor pPackovar pH 
Seiy 70 THs dppnrov Kai doparou Suvdpews pwvoTHprov di dpatav Kai pbaprav 
émredcioOar KTICpATwY, Kal TaY avevvonTrwy Kal dowpdTwr &’ aidOnTav Kai 
owparika@y’ eiva 5& TeAElav dmoAUTpwoW avTiY Ti Emlyvwowv TOU dppnTov 
peyédous. 


gi 


274 Drssertations. 


the fellowship and unity, and confessing [as a con-' 
sequence] the resurrection, of flesh and of spirit. For 
as bread of the earth receiving upon it the evocation 
of God is no longer common bread but eucharist, made 
up of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our 
bodies receiving the eucharist are no longer corruptible, 
having the hope of the eternal resurrection 1.’ 


The same principle was again in evidence at the period 
of controversy with the different forms of Monophy- 
sitism from Chalcedon downwards. Again and again 
in that controversy the doctrine of the Incarnation, 
the doctrine that the divine (or supernatural) does 
not destroy or absorb the human (or natural), was, 
so to speak, proved by the eucharist, the earthly 
elements of bread and wine being dignified, but not 
annihilated, by the spiritual presence of which they are 
made the vehicle. This argument is used by the author, 
said to be St. Chrysostom, of the letter to Caesarius 2, 


1 con. Haer. iv. 18. 5 mpoopépopev 5é adT@ Ta tha, Euped@s Kowvwviay Kal 
€vwaiv dmayyé\AovTes Kal dpodoyouvTes ocapkis Kal mvevpatos éyEpat. 
ws yap and ys dpros mpocdAapBavopevos tiv ExKkAnow Tov GEeod ovKETL 
kow0s apros éaTiv, GAd’ evxaploTia, éx SV0 mpaypatwv ovveoTyKvia, émyeiov 
Te Kal ovpaviou’ oUTws Kal TA OWpaTA HuaVY usTadapBavoyTa THs EVXapLoTias, 
Pnkéte eivar pOapta, TiHv éAmida THs eis ai@vas dvaoTacews €xovta. The same 
principle was, as is well known, emphasized by Tertullian both as regards 
Christ’s person and the sacraments: cf. appended note D. 

* ap. Routh, Serzpt. Eccl. Opusc. (Oxford, 1858) ii. p. 127 ‘ Unus Filius, 
unus Dominus; idem ipse proculdubio unitarum naturarum unam domina- 
tionem, unam potestatem possidens, etiamsi non consubstantiales exsistunt, 
et unaquaeque incommixtam [incommixta Petrus Alartyr| proprietatis con- 
servat agnitionem, propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo. Sicut enim 
antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem illum 
sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione 
panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi 
natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii 
praecicatur.’ The fragment (the history of which is given in Dect. of Chr. 


LTransubstantiation and Nthiliantsm. 275 


by Theodoret?, by Gelasius?, by Augustine as repre- 
sented in a ‘sentence’ of Prosper*®, by Ephraim, bishop 


Log. s.v. CAESARIUS) belongs, we can hardly doubt, to the Zfzstle to 
Caesarius (of uncertain authorship) of which another part is given in 
Migne, Chrysost. Opera, P. G. \xiv. p. 494. There can be little doubt that 
the reason why some strong patristic passages against transubstantiation 
have but little ms. evidence for their genuineness is because mediaeval 
copyists did their best to obliterate them. As we have seen an Ambrosian 
passage had been altered before Lanfranc’s time (see p. 230 n.). Such 
passages are not at all likely to have been forged in mediaeval times. 

* Dial. ii Inconfusus, p. 126 (ed. Schultze, see also in Routh, /.¢. 
p- 132) ERANISTES: Womep Toivuy Ta avUuBodra TOU SeomoTiKOD owpaTis 
Te Kal aipatos, dAAa pév eiot mpd THs lepariKns emHANoEws, weTA FE ye THY 
émixAnow peTraBadrrAeTa kal Erepa yivetar’ ovTw TO SeororiKdy cHpa pera 
THY avadrniuy eis THY ovaliav peTEBANON TiV Oeiay. ORTHODOXUS: édAas ais 
vpnves dpkvow ovdée yap pera Toy ayiagpor TA pvoTiKa oUuBodra Tis oikEias 
efiararar picews péver yap énl THs mporépas ovaias Kal Tov oyHpaTOs Kal 
Tov €ldous, Kal dpaTa éoTt Kal anTd, oia Kal mpdTepoy Hy, voeiTtar 5 Gmep 
eyéveto kal moreveTar Kal TpooKuvetrat, ws exetva OvTa dmep moTeveETaL. 
mapades Toivuy T@ apxeTitw TH ecixdva, Kal dLe THY bpmowTyTAa’ xpT yap 
€ourévat TH GAnOeia Tov TUTOV. Kal ydp éxeivo TO GMa TO pev MpdTEpov 
eidos €xer Kal oxjpa Kal meprypadijy Kai, anagamA@s eineiy, TIV TOU GwpaTosS 
ovciay’ GOavatoy 5é peta THY GvacTacw Yéyove Kai KpEtTTOv POopas Kal THs 
éx Sefi@v 7£tw0n KabéSpas cal napa madons mpooKvvetrar THs KTicews, ATE 57 
compa xpnpatiCov Tov SeandTou THs pioews. 

* Gelasius, de Duab. Nat. in Chr. adv. Eutych. et Nest. ‘ Certe sacramenta 
quae sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et 
per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit 
substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis 
et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis 
evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo domino sentiendum quod in 
eius imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus, ut, sicut in hance scilicet 
in divinam transeunt sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanente 
[? permanentia] tamen in suae proprietate naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium 
principale, cuius nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant ex 
[? his ex] quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia 
integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant’ (Routh, /.c. p. 139). On the 
authenticity of this passage see Dict. of Ch. Biog. ii. p. 620, s.v. GELASIUS. 

3 Quoted in Alger, de Sacr. Corp. et Sang. Dominict (see above, p. 264) 
i. 6 as a ‘similitudo beati Augustini in libro sententiarum Prosperi’ : 
‘sacrificium ecclesiae duobus confici duobusque constare, sicut persona 
Christi constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine.’ It does not exist in our 
copies of Prosper’s sentences, but may well be genuine. 


toa 


276 Dissertations. 


of ‘Theopolis’ (Antioch)1, and as nearly as he dared 
—so nearly that Bellarmine called him heretical—by 
Rupert of Deutz’. These writers (with the possible 
exception of the last) unmistakeably declare that the 
‘nature’ or ‘substance’ of the bread and wine remain 
after consecration. 

The principle which this theology both of the 
Incarnation and of the eucharist illustrates is admirably 
stated by the best theologian of the sixth century, 
Leontius of Byzantium *. 


* Quoted in Photius, Azbliotheca, cod. 229 (P. G. ciii. p. 980), from 
his work against Nestorius and Eutyches. He argues for the uncon- 
fused reality of Christ’s manhood and continues: ov7w sal 76 mapa Toy 
mioTav NapBavdpevovy oHuya Xpiorov kal THs aicOnrhs ovoias ove éfiorarat 
kat THS vonths advaiperoy péever xapitos* Kal TO Barticpa Se mvevpaTiKdy, Gov 
yevopevoy rat ev trdpyor, kat TO tdiov THs aicOnThs ovatas, ToU VSaTos A€yw, 
diacwler, kal 6 yéyover, ovx dmnwdecev. See also in Routh, /.c. p. 143. 

* Quoted in Gieseler, Acc. Hist. iii. 314 *Totum attribuetis operationi 
Spiritus sancti, cuius effectus non est destruere vel corrumpere substantiam, 
quamcunque suos in usus assumit, sed substantiae bono permanenti quod 
erat invisibiliter adicere quod non erat. Sicut naturam humanam non 
destruxit, cum illam operatione sua ex utero virginis Deus Verbo in uni- 
tatem personae coniunxit : sic substantiam panis et vini, secundum exterio- 
rem speciem quinque sensibus subiectam, non mutat aut destruit, cum 
eidem Verbo in unitatem corporis eiusdem, quod in cruce pependit, et 
sanguinis eiusdem, quem de latere suo fudit, ista coniungit. Item quomodo 
Verbum a summo demissum caro factum est, non mutatum in carnem, sed 
assumendo carnem: sic panis et vinum, utrumque ab imo sublevatum, fit 
corpus Christi et sanguis, non mutatum in carnis saporem sive in sanguinis 
horrorem, sed assumendo invisibiliter utriusque, divinae scilicet et humanae, 
quae in Christo est immortalis substantiae veritatem’ (P. Z. clxvii. p. 617-8). 

° con. Nest. et Eut. ii. (P. G.1xxxvi. p. 1333) Kat TovTo b€ pH KaTadrci~wper 
amapacnuavrov, bt. Tpiav aitidv Oewpovpevav, @€ wv aca amoTEAciTAL 
evépyea’ 4 pev yap eat ex pvokys duvapews, % 5é éx maparponhs THs Kata 
puow éfews, h bt Erépa Oewpeirar KaTa THY mpos Td KpeiTTOv avaBaow TE Kal 
mpbodov TovTwy ev pvoikh, 7 Se Tapa plow, H Se iwép pvow éorl kal 
dvouateTar, 1 mev ovv mapa pdaw, Kar’ aid ye TO Ovopa, amomTwols Tis ovoa 
TaVY proikay eewv Kal Svvdpewy, Avpaivera TH TE Ovoia av’TH Kal Tais Tav’THS 
puocais évepyeias.  5& puowkh ex THs amapanodiarov Kal Kata vow 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 277 


‘Let us not, he says, ‘leave it unnoticed that every 
sort of energy results from one of three distinguish- 
able causes: one sort of energy proceeds from natural 
power; another from the perversion of the natural 
habit; the third represents an elevation or advance 
of the nature towards what is higher. Of these the 
first is and is called natural; the second unnatural; 
the third supernatural. Now the unnatural, as_ its 
name implies, being a falling away from natural 
habits and powers, injures both the substance itself 
and its natural energies. The natural proceeds from 
the unimpeded and naturally cogent cause. But the 
supernatural leads up and elevates the natural energy 
and empowers it for actions of a more perfect order, 
which it would not have been able to accomplish 
so long as it remained within the limits of its own 
nature. The supernatural therefore does not destroy the 
natural, but educes and stimulates it both to do its own 
business and to acquire the power for what is above it.’ 
He exemplifies this principle by the way in which art, 
without destroying its natural material, elevates it, 
whether in music or mechanics, to higher ‘supernatural ’ 
uses. And he applies it to our Lord’s humanity to 
emphasize that its natural laws remained unimpeded 
and unaltered by its supernatural union with the God- 
head. ‘The supernatural, he concludes, ‘implies the 
permanence of the natural. The very possibility of 
a miracle is gone if the natural is overthrown by what 


- ‘ , A ‘ \ 
épnpeopévns dmoredcita aitias. 1 5& imep piow dvaye Te Kal tot Kal mpos 
Ta TeAdebTepa Svvapot Kal dnep ove av icxvoew evepyelv Tots Kata pow 
évaropelvaca. ove ear ody TA bnép d vow TOV KaTa piow avaipeTiKa, GAG 

A fol \ ‘ \ \ 
napdywya kal mapopyntind, eis TO KaKetva TE SuynOHVaL Kal Thy mpos Ta UTep 
cal A XN \ « 7 / ww , a“ 
ravta Sivapuv mpocdraBeiv. . . . ovde yap Ta UTEp puaow EXEL Xwpar, pn) THS 

te pI , \ , > / XN ‘ ¥ > ~ “ « .. , » 
puoews EXovoNS KaTAa Pua. adpynpyTat 5€ Kal TO elvar Oavpa, TH UTEP Hud 

lol ei , fd ‘ 
Ths pvoews petactaons, Kal yiverar UBpis H PidoTipia Tupavynoaga THY 


aAndecav. 


278 Dissertations. 


is supernatural, and pride when it tyrannizes over the 
truth of nature deserves the name of insolence.’ 


This great Christian principle the transubstantiation 
dogma fundamentally violates. Its supporters have (as 
has appeared above) often exulted in declaring that the 
eucharistic miracle is against nature; and, both in ancient 
and modern times, they have been driven to admit 
implicitly or explicitly, that the analogy of the Incarna- 
tion and the sacrament in one important respect—that 
in which the fathers of Chalcedon made so much of 
it—fails to maintain itself?. Thus Lessius?, for example, 
in drawing out seven analogies of the eucharist with the 
Incarnation, significantly leaves out that one of which 
the fathers made chief mention. But the sacraments 
are the ‘ extension of the Incarnation’: they exhibit the 
same principles of divine action. And it is an argument 
of the most serious weight against a theory which is 
intended to explain one of the sacraments, that it has 
against it all the analogy of its great prototype. 

‘ Thus in mediaeval times Georgius Scholarius (quoted in Lequien’s 
edition of John of Damascus, i. p. 270) says that the eucharist is the 
greatest of all miracles, because while in Christ’s person the higher nature 
does not destroy the lower, here it does. Hugo a S. Victore, ade 
Sacr. ii. 8,9 (P. LZ. clxxvi. p. 468), writes ‘conversio ipsa non secundum 
unionem sed secundum transitionem credenda est.’ 


* 7.c.§ 129. Perrone also deals most unsatisfactorily with the matter : 
see /.¢c. §§ 143-5. 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 279 


KOE 


Nihilianism the background of the theory 
of transubstantiation. 


We now approach the question why the analogy of 
the incarnation doctrine—embodied as it was in dogmas 
which guarded the substantial reality and permanence 
of our Lords manhood—did not prove a bar to the 
development and establishment of the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation. The answer to the question is not far to 
seek. Throughout the period during which the doctrine 
of transubstantiation was in controversy, the reality of 
our Lord’s manhood, and the principle of the Incarnation 
which its reality expresses, were very inadequately held. 
The dogmas were indeed retained but their meaning was 
little considered. What has been already described as 
nihilianism was the current mode of conceiving the 
Incarnation : that is to say, the manhood of Christ was 
regarded almost exclusively as the veil of Godhead or 
as the channel of its communication. These are indeed 
the only points of view from which the Incarnation need 
be regarded in order to supply a background for the 
authority of revealed doctrine and the reality of sacra- 
mental grace. But the aspect of the manhood of Christ 
on which stress is laid in the Gospels—the reality of His 
human example, human temptation, human struggles, 
human limitations —this was very little considered. 


280 Dissertations. 


As a consequence, the principle which this aspect of the 
Incarnation brings into relief—the principle that the 
divine and the supernatural does not overthrow or 
obliterate the human and the natural—was little em- 
phasized, and it failed accordingly to present the 
obstacle which it should have presented to the develop- 
ment of the dogma of transubstantiation. 

The prevalence of nihilianism (as explained above) 
in the early mediaeval period is not disputable. We 
have already! traced its influence in the west from 
its source in Apollinarius’ teaching through the quasi- 
monophysitism of ‘ Dionysius’ and his translator, Scotus 
Erigena. It unfortunately found support in a passage 
of Augustine himself, who was the accepted standard 
of orthodoxy. Augustine, commenting on the Latin of 
Phil. ii. 7 abstu tnventus est ut homo, had, as has 
already appeared, glossed the passage with the words 
‘habendo hominem inventus est ut homo non sibi sed eis 
quibus in homine apparuit’—thus apparently making the 
humanity not something into the experience of which 
the Son really entered, but a mere mode of manifesta- 
tion. This quotation from Augustine became a common- 
place and coalesced with Monophysite influences. Thus 
it appears in Albinus Flaccus* and Rabanus Maurus°, 
and we have already seen how it was quoted by the 
Master of the Sentences. To appreciate the extent to 


1 See above, pp. 171-9. 

? adv. Felicem, ii. 12 (P. L. ci. p. 156). Alcuin is also responsible for such 
perilous phrases as ‘homo ¢vazsivzt in Deum’ (de /id. S. Trin. ili. 9g, 
3 ‘persona ferzt hominis non natura’ (adv. Felzc. ii. 12, p. 156). 
P- 44), P »P 

° P. L. exit. p. 489. It is a stock quotation in commentaries on the 
Philippians. 


Transubstantiation and Nuihilianism. <8) 


which nihilianism prevailed, it is necessary to look 
through the theology of the period more or less in bulk. 
Such a simple phrase as this of Gregory of Bergamo— 
true but manifestly one-sided—expresses the current 
way of thinking about Christ, ‘Caro videbatur et Deus 
eredebatur ty 

The connexion of this phase of thought with tran- 
substantiation is not hard to see. Apollinarius’ doctrine 
was in fact transubstantiation in regard to the manhood 
of Christ. He loved to speak not of the ‘ hypostatic’ 
but of the ‘substantial’ unity of the humanity with the 
Godhead, that is, its unity in one substance or nature”. 
Scotus Erigena protests against the phraseology of 
popular orthodoxy in speaking of ‘two substances’ in 
Christ. He is two natures, no doubt, but in ome sub- 
stance®: ‘Christus in unitate humanae et divinae sub- 


Uo hy lea I 

2 See quotations in Leontius, Z. ¢., P. G. Ixxxvi. 1964 d (womae? 5€ jyas 
4 capt avrov Sia THY ovvovolmpevny adTH OEcTHTA’ TO Se CworoLdy Oerkdv" BeLk7) 
dpa capt, Ste OG ovvidbn .. . dpoovarov aiT@ ... odK apa dpoovarov 
avOpwrivw TO Belov. p.1957a pas yap Kal ovcia tavtdév éaTw. Cf. the 
famous phrase adopted by Cyril from Apollinarius pia pdats To Be0d Adyou 
ceoapkwpévn (vid. supr. p. 153). 

3 Joh. Scotus, de Div. Nat. P. L. cxxii. p. 1018. Commenting on St. Matt. 
vii. 21-2 Domine, Domine, he suggests that this ‘geminatio dominici nominis : 
may be intended to represent the state of the indolently orthodox who speak 
of ‘two substances’ in Christ: ‘vel certo simplicium fideliam minus 
catholicae fidei altitudinem considerantium ignaviam significat, putantes 
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum duabus substantiis esse compositum, 
dum sit una substantia in duabus naturis. . . . Quanti sunt qui Dominum 
Iesum Christum ita segregant, ut neque divinitatem illius humanitati neque 
humanitatem divinitati in unitatem substantiae, seu ut latini usitatius 
dicunt in unitatem personae adunatam vel credant vel intelligant, cum ipsius 
humanitas et divinitas unum et inseparabile unum sint, salva utriusque 
naturae ipsius ratione. The ‘ratio’ of the humanity remains though the 
humanity itself is frequently spoken of as ‘translata’ or ‘transmutata in 
Deum’; cf. pp. 539 b, c, and 1015 ¢, d. 


282 Dissertations. 


stantiae ultra omne quod sensu sentitur corporeo super 
omne quod virtute percipitur intelligentiae Deus invisi- 
bilis in utraque sua natura.’ Phrases of a Monophysite 
colour, like the ‘divine and human substance’ or the 
‘divine humanity and human divinity, appear also in 
Florus and Witmund!. Paschasius Radbert, even when 
retaining the orthodox language of two substances, 
speaks of the humanity of Christ (misinterpreting Heb. 1.3 
figura, vel character, substantiae eius) as the figure or the 
character, that is letter of the alphabet, significative of 
the divine substance; and justifies thereby the position 
that the eucharistic bread may be called a figure of 
a divine reality and yet be itself really that of which 
it is a figure, as the manhood is no other thing than 
the divine person who assumed it?. 

Some of the writers who use this language are not 
adherents of transubstantiation. But in Paschasius Rad- 
bert, in Witmund, in Gregory of Bergamo, this way of 
regarding the Incarnation is in definite connexion with 
the theory of transubstantiation. Later on the affinity 
of the two theories is apparent in the pages of scholastic 
commentaries on the Sezfences of Peter Lombard. 
Nihilianism, as stated by Peter, had been already 


1 See Witmund, /. c. ii. 32 (P. LZ. cxlix. p. 1458) ‘ex divina consistens et 
humana substantia.’ (I am not sure that he does not mean ‘consist of the 
divine substance and of the human.’ But the subsequent sections are nihilianist 
in tone. See especially cc. 38, 39.) Florus de Expos. Miss. 34 (P. L. cxix. 
p- 33) ‘sed inter solam divinitatem et humanitatem solam mediatrix est 
humana divinitas et divina humanitas Christi.’ 

2 7. c.iv.2 (P. LZ. cxx. p. 1279) ‘sic ex humanitate Christi ad divinitatem 
Patris pervenitur: et ideo iure figura vel character substantiae illius vocatur 

. verumtamen neque Christus homo falsitas dici potest neque aliud quam 
Deus licet figura id est character substantiae divinitatis iure dicatur.’ 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 283 


condemned ', but it is none the less commented upon, 
and it is treated as a view according to which the 
humanity is reduced to an accident cf the divine sub- 
stance. Thus Thomas Aquinas describes it in these 
words: ‘Tertia opinio dicit animam et carnem acci- 
dentaliter personae Verbi advenire ut homini_ ves- 
timentum.’ Again, ‘[Tertia opinio ponit quod homo] 
praedicatur de Christo accidentaliter . . . cum habitus 
sit genus accidentis, videtur quod Deus fuerit homini 
accidentaliter unitus. This opinion is rejected on 
grounds of authority—Pope Alexander's condemnation 
—and of reason, but it is allowed, on the ground of the 
supposed comparison of the humanity to a robe in 
Phil. 11. 7, that it ‘habet aliquam similitudinem cum 
accidente ... unde antiqui dixerunt quod vergit in 
accidens; et quidam) propter hoc addiderunt quod dege- 
nerat in accidens, quod tamen non ita proprie dicitur, 
quia natura humana in Christo non degenerat, imo 
magis nobilitatur’. A later Dominican schoolman, 
Durandus a S. Portiano (c. 1318), concludes against 
nihilianism in these words: ‘ Relinquitur ergo quod sicut 
natura humana non transit in naturam accidentis sic non 
advenit accidentaliter per inhaerentiam personae divinae®.’ 

It may now be said to have been sufficiently shown 
that transubstantiation in eucharistic doctrine is the 
analogue of nihilianism with regard to the Incarnation. 
The existing dogmas, so strongly guarding the substan- 
tiality of the manhood, stopped the progress of the 


1 See above, p. 177. 

2 See Thom. Aquin. zz Quat. Libr. Sententt. lib. iii. dist. vi. exposition, 
and art. 4. 

3 in Quat. Libr. Sententt. lib. iii. dist. vi. art. 4. 


284 Dissertations. 


latter view, but there were no similar dogmas in the case 
of the former. Even before nihilianism was condemned 
the theory of transubstantiation had reached a position 
of acceptance, and it became a dogmatically required 
term very shortly after the condemnation of the theory 
which may be described as its elder sister. 

But it may be said: Granted all this, yet if tran- 
substantiation is a dogmatic term of the Latin Church, 
which has also been accepted by the Orthodox and 
Russian Churches of the east}, and if the Latin school- 
men have abandoned the grossness of its original use, 
may we not in the interests of unity accept the 
phrase? To this pleading I should reply that it is 
quite true that it is possible to minimize the meaning 
of transubstantiation till it becomes practically com- 
patible with an acceptance of the permanence of the 
natural elements in the ordinary sense of these terms, 
coupled with a denial of their permanence in a laboured 
metaphysical sense which is no longer in use among 
philosophical writers other than Roman Catholics. Thus 
Cardinal Franzelin says: ‘It is demonstrable, as well 
from the reason of the sacrament as from the clear 
teaching of the fathers, that that which in the most 
holy sacrament is the immediate object of the senses is 
something objectively real?:’ and this sort of language 
may be pressed till transubstantiation is made to 


* Macarius, 7héologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe (Paris, 1860) §§ 215, 216. 
Cf. Zransubstantiation and the Church of England, by J. B. Wainewright 
(Mowbray, 1895), pp. 22 ff. Denny and Lacey, de Hierarchia Anglicana 
(Cambridge, 1895) §§ 185-6. 

* Tract. de SS. Euch. Sacram. e¢ Sacrif., thesis xvi. 11. 9. 1, p. 273, as 
quoted by Wainewright, 7c. Cf. Einig, 7ract. de SS. Euch. Myst. (Trier, 


Transubstantiation and Nihilianism. 285 


mean almost practically nothing. But as was indicated 
above, the mere fact that it must be concluded from the 
doctrine that the heavenly substances vanish when diges- 
tion begins and the old substances recur, is a sign that 
the real force of the doctrine cannot be finally evaded. 
Further, it can never be a satisfactory settlement to 
accept a phrase in a sense so unreal that you are not 
prepared to apply it anywhere else. Finally, to accept 
the phrase in regard to the eucharist is to abandon 
a great principle which runs through all theology—the 
principle that the supernatural does not annihilate and 
supersede the natural. This, as has been shown at 
length, is the principle of the Incarnation, and it was 
only the weakened hold of the principle in the sphere of 
Christology which accounts for its being denied in the 
sphere of the sacrament. This is the principle which the 
development of biblical criticism is forcing us to reassert 
in the region of the doctrine of inspiration, where it 
means that the supernatural action of the Holy Ghost 
does not destroy the natural action of human faculties 
or overthrow the natural processes of literary develop- 
ment. In the application again of Christianity to the 
sanctifying of human character we are for ever bound to 
insist that the human character in its most fundamental 
nature is meant to be developed, not overthrown. by 
supernatural grace. Finally, all that science has gone to 
teach us about the divine action in creation compels us 
to emphasize the same principle: the respect which God 
1888) p. 47 ‘species panis et vini sunt aliquid obiectivum reale.’ This 
appears to go even beyond the language of Anselm, see p. 267 n. 3, for he 


continues after the passage there quoted ‘ideo autem quod non est apparet 
et quod est celatur, quia si quod est videretur animus humanus abhorreret.’ 


286 Dissertations. 


pays to the natural substances which express His own 
will in creation and are sustained by His own imma- 
nence. In every department of inquiry we are bound 
to use the phraseology which best expresses the principle 
which Leontius asserts for us, that ‘the supernatural 
does not destroy the natural!’ 


1 See above, p. 277. 


ODE NDA 


To pp. 19-21. When these pages were written I was 
ignorant of a paper by Dr. Theo. Zahn on de Syrische Statt- 
halterschaft und die Schdétzung des Quirinius (Neue kirchliche 
Leuuschrifl, 1893, 8, pp. 633-654). It is now too late to dis- 
cuss its somewhat surprising results. But it is desirable to call 
the attention of scholars to it. Dr. Zahn impugns the trust- 
worthiness of Josephus; denies the /afer governorship of 
Quirinius ; asserts that he was governor of Syria only B.c. 4 (3) 
to 2 (1), and at the beginning of this period, after not before 
the death of Herod, took the only census that was taken; and 
maintains that this census is referred to by St. Luke both in 
Luke 11. 2, and Acts v. 37, though he antedates it by about a year. 


To Dissertation II. At the last moment I cannot resist the 
temptation to insert the following illustration of the contrast 
between Origen’s doctrine and Augustine’s with regard to the 
reality of the Aenos’s. Both writers are, in view of St. Paul’s 
language in Eph. v. 22-23, interpreting of Christ’s incarnation 
the words, ‘A man shall leave his father and mother, &c.’ 
Origen writes thus (zz A/a/th. tom. xv. 17): Kal Katad€Aouré ye 
dua THY exkAnoiav Kipios 6 aVI/p TaTépa dv Edpa OTE ev poppy Geod 
tampxev. Augustine writes (see Prosper, Senfent. lib. 330; 
P. £. ll. p. 478). ‘Reliquit Christus, Patrem,. . mon squia 
deseruit et recessit a Patre, sed quia non in ea forma apparuit 
hominibus in quo aequalis est Patri.’ 


Pen DED NOLES 





Appended Notes. A. 289 


ok, 


SUPPOSED JEWISH EXPECTATION OF THE 


VIRGIN BIRTH. 


Ir was stated above (p. 35) that it does not appear that there 
was any Jewish expectation that Christ should be born of 
a virgin. This has been for many years an accepted position 
among scholars (see Stanton’s /ewesh and Christian Messiah, 
p. 377), but in the Academy of June 8, 1895, Mr. Badham attempts 
to traverse it. He gives a list of Rabbinical passages in which 
this expectation is supposed to appear. But his quotations have 
a history. All those which have any real bearing on the subject 
are from Martini’s Pugo Fider (c. a. D. 1280) or from Vincenti’s 
Messta Venuto (A.D. 1659). If we have not read these works 
we have read the quotations, or the most important of them, 
m the notes to Pearson On the Creed (Oxford 1877, p. 306) 
and elsewhere. They surprised us no doubt when we first 
read them, but we soon learnt, perhaps from a more recent 
editor of Pearson’s work, that there is nothing corresponding 
to them in any existing printed texts or mss. of the Talmud. 
This Mr. Badham admits in his letter. But what then is 
the use of quoting them? They may or may not be for- 
geries, but at least they cannot be quoted, for they are con- 
trary to all that we know from other sources about Jewish 
beliefs. The passages to be quoted or referred to immediately 
from Justin, Tertullian and Jerome prove that the contemporary 
Jews interpreted ’a/mah in Isaiah vil..14 as ‘young woman,’ 
that there was no existing expectation among them that the 
Christ should be born of a virgin, and no evidence of their ever 
having thought differently. Had there been any such evidence 


U 


290 Dissertations. 


the Christians would have been eager to charge the Jews with 
having changed their minds. The ]xx translates ’almah as 
csrapBévos in Isaiah vii as in Genesis xxiv. 431, but the word 
does not appear to have made any impression till it was read 
in the light of events by the early Christians. 

The passages referred to are as follows. Justin Martyr, Dead. 
43, after citing Is, vii continues: 6ru pév obv év TO yever TO KaTa 
capxa ToD “ABpadp ovdels ovdérote ard tapbevov yeyevvyTa ovdE 
NéXexTar yeyevvynpevos GAN 7 obTos 6 Huetepos Xpiotos, Tact pave- 
pov €otw. rel O€ tyets Kal ot diddoKador buaGv ToApate Eye 
pede cipnoOa ev tH podyteia tod "Hoatov “180d 4 map9€vos év 
yaotpi €fer, GAN “180d 4 vedvis €v yaotpt Anerar kal TéfeTar uidy, 
Kat e€nyetobe tiv mpopyteiav as eis “Elexiav, Tov yevopevov bmav 
Baorréa, reipdcopar Kat év tovTw Kal ipav Bpaxéa eEnynoacba 
Kat dzodetfar eis Todtov eippobar tov dporoyovpevov id’ Ov 
Xpiorov. This is repeated in cc. 66-7. Similar statements as to 
Jewish interpretation are to be found in Tertullian, adv. Jud. 9 
“mentiri audetis, quasi non virginem sed iuvenculam conceptu- 
ram et parituram scriptura contineat,’ cp. adv. Marcion. ili. 13 ; 
and Jerome, adv. Helvid. 5, ii. p. 209 (ed. Vallarsi). 

Mr. F. C. Conybeare does not appear to have read Mr. Bad- 
ham’s letter with much care. Writing in the Academy of 
June 15 he describes it as a ‘letter on the prevalence among 
the ancient Jews of the belief that the Messiah was to be born 
of a virgin,’ and alludes to the ‘ Rabbinic analogies’ to pagan 
beliefs ‘brought to light by Mr. Badham.’ He clearly has not 
realized the antecedents of Mr. Badham’s quotations. Otherwise 
it is not the orthodox Christians whom he would have impugned 
so vigorously for ‘ special pleading’ and refusal ‘to look facts in 
the face.’ As it is he suggests that the belief among the Jews 
came ‘through the Greeks and Egyptians,’ and specially insists 
upon the parallel to the virgin birth of our Lord afforded by 
the Greek legend of the birth of Plato. I have alluded to 
a similar belief in the case of Augustus (p. 55). It is to 


* In two places in the Song of Solomon it is translated veduis. 


A ppended Notes. A. 291 


be noted, however, that none of the pagan authors cited by 
Mr. Conybeare refers to Plato as born of a virgin. It is only 
Jerome who does this as in the similar case of the Buddha (see 
above, p. 58, note 2), The Greek legend represents Plato as 
born of the union of his mother Perictione with the phantasm 
of the god Apollo, the god appearing in a vision and a voice 
forbidding Ariston, her husband, to exercise his marital rights 
till the child was born. The following are the versions 
of Diogenes Laertius, Apuleius, and Jerome, referred to by 
Mr. Conybeare: 

Diogenes Laertius: Saevourros 8 ev TO errypadhopévw IXa- 
Twvos Tept deirvov kat KAé€apyos év 7 IAdtwvos éyxwpiw Kat 
"AvagéiAidns ev TO Sevtépw mrept pitocddwv daciv, os "APnvnow jy 
Aoyos wpaiay otcav tTHv Tepixtivyv BitlerGor tov “Apiotwva, Kat 
pn Tvyxavev. Tavopevov Te THS Bias idety TV Tod ’AtoANWVOS 
ow. dOev Kabapav ydpou prada, ews Tis aroKvycews (de vit. 
phil. iii. 2, p. 164, ed. 1692). 

Apuleius: ‘Sunt qui Platonem augustiore conceptu prosatum, 
dicunt, cum quaedam Apollinis figuratio Perictione se miscuisset’ 
(de dogm. Plat. i. 1, ed. Hildebrand ii. p. 173). 

Jerome: ‘Speusippus quoque sororis Platonis filius et Clearchus 
in laude Platonis et Anaxilides in secundo libro philosophiae 
Perictionem, matrem Platonis, phantasmate Apollinis oppressam 
ferunt, et sapientiae principem non aliter arbitrantur nisi de 
partu virginis editum’ (adv. Jovin. i. 42, Vall. ii. p. 309). 

I am sure that this conception of heroes as born from the 
union of gods and women is wholly alien to Jewish beliefs ; and 
that there is no reason to believe that it exercised any influence 
on the Jews. Such a legendary conception had been introduced 
into Jewish literature only to be once for all put to death, see 
Gen. vi. 1-8. 

That Jerome and Origen (see con. Cels. i. 37) should have 
used these legends as an argumentum ad hominem with the 
heathen, and have even assimilated them to the Christian history, 


is by no means surprising. 


U 2 


292 Dissertations. 


B. 


THE READINGS OF CODEX SINAITICUS. = - 


THE Codex Sinatticus referred to on p. 61 is the Syriac 
palimpsest of the four Gospels discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the 
Convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai in February, 1892’, 
and which has excited so much interest as giving us another 
and almost complete text of the Syr. Vet, which had hitherto 
lain before us only in the Curetonian fragments. The new 
Syriac text was published in Oct. 1894 by the Cambridge 
University Press’, and was followed in December of the same 
year by ‘A Translation of the Four Gospeis from the Syriac of the 
Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, M.R.A.S/ 

This Codex is connected with the subject of Dissertation I by 
its new and interesting readings in St. Matt. i, as will appear if 
we extract the passage from Mrs. Lewis’ translation. 


St. Matt. 1.16 Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed 
Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who ts called the Christ. . . 

18 And the birth of the Christ was on this wise: When Mary 
his mother was espoused to Joseph, when they had not come near 
one to the other, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 

1g Lhen Joseph her husband, because he was just, did not wish to 

20 expose Mary, and was minded quietly to repudiate her. But 
while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared 








' See How the Codex was found, by Margaret Dunlop Gibson (Macmillan, 
1893). 

* The Four Gospels in Syriac. Transcribed from the Syriac palimpsest 
by the late Robert L. Bensly, M.A., and by J. Rendel Harris, M.A., and 
by F. Crawford Burkitt, M.A. With an introduction by Agnes Smith 
Lewis. Cambridge, at the University Press, 1894. 


A ppended Notes. B, 293 


to him in a vtston and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, 
fear not to take Mary thy wife: for that which ts begotten from 
21 her ws of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bear to thee a son, 
and thou® shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people 
22 from their sins. Now this which happened was that tt might 
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by Isata the prophet, 
23.who said, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring 
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being 
24 iéterpreted ws, God with us. When Joseph arose from his 
sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and 
25 took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and he called his 


name Jesus. 


For the sake of fuller illustration it will be useful to subjoin 
the more significant variations of the Peshitta and Curetonian 
Syriac :— 

Cor. PEsH. 
ver. 16 Joseph, he to whom was Joseph the husband of Mary 
espoused Mary the Virgin, Jrom whom was begotten 
she who bare Jesus the Jesus, who ws called the 


Christ Christ 
19 Joseph (om. her husband) Joseph her husband 
20 Mary thy espoused Mary thy wife 
21 shall bear to thee shall bear a son 
and his name shall be called — and thou shalt call his name 
23 and his name shall be called and they shall call his name 
24 and took his wife and took Mary 
25 and lived purely with her and knew her not 
until she bare the son “ill she bare her firstborn son 
and she called and she called. 


The Greek text (W. H. and Tisch.) agrees with Pesh. except in 
ver. 24 his zwefe (cur.) and 25 a son (for her firstborn son): éxddevev 
in ver. 25 might possibly be ambiguous. 

In this passage the statements which arrest our attention, and 
which have in fact already given rise to a controversy in the 


2 Or she 
shall cali, 


294 Dissertations. 


Academy’, are these : Joseph begat Jesus, she shall bear to thee a son, 
and he took his wife and she bore to him a son. What are we to 
say of them? In endeavouring to discuss their meaning it will 
be very essential to distinguish between two questions : 

(i) What is their meaning in relation to our Lord's virgin 
birth, taken as they stand? and (ii)—a question really prior in 
fact—What is the value of the text of Cod. Sin., and of these 
readings in particular ? 


At the first sight, the readings in question seem to give a 
naturalistic account of our Lord’s birth, as if Joseph had been 
His father after the ordinary manner. But the scribe of Cod. 
Sin. certainly did not hold such a view himself. For these 
readings are in juxtaposition with, or rather embedded in, 
a miraculous account of the birth, which agrees in all respects 
with the text we are familiar with. Joseph begat Jesus, but it was 
in an unusual sense, which the writer goes on to explain—And 
(= But, dé) the birth of the Christ was on thts wise. In St. Luke i 
there is a lacuna where the account of the annunciation should 
occur, and several words are obliterated at the beginning of the 
second chapter, but enough remains to show that there also the 
account of the birth is in practical agreement with the Greek 
text. Further, significant phrases such as she child with Mary 
his mother (St. Matt. ii. 11, no mention being made of the 
father), and fake the child and his mother (St. Matt. ii. 13, 20, 
said to Joseph”) are left unaltered: while in St. Luke iii. 23 we 
read And Jesus, when he was about thirty years old, as he was 
called the son of Joseph. 


' The letters began with one from Mr. F. C. Conybeare on Noy. 17, 1894. 
* Not ake thy child, or thy wife and child. 


Appended Notes. B. 295 


In fact, apart from categoric statements about our Lord’s birth, 
there are not wanting indications that our scribe held virginity 
in high esteem, and would lay proportionate stress on Mary’s 
virginity. So 

(a) He speaks of her as Wary the Virgin. He does not 
write ¢o whom was betrothed a virgin, Mary (like our Bible in 
St. Luke i. 27, fo a virgin betrothed toa man... and the virgin’s 
name was Mary), but Mary the Virgin, ‘ the Virgin’ as it were car 
e£oxyv. Mr. Conybeare’, recognizing the expression as a kind 
of permanent title, supposes it to = ‘the widow’; but a much 
more obvious explanation is to see in it the hand of one who 
held that Mary remained ever a virgin. 

(8) The same theory, of belief in the perpetual virginity of 
Mary, also accounts most naturally for the omission of knew her 
not until in ver. 25—the scribe shrinking from the ambiguity of 
the uni. 

(y) He gives a solution of a difficulty which the fact of the 
virgin birth might raise: If our Lord was not literally begotten 
of Joseph, and it is Joseph’s genealogy which is given in Matt. i, 
how do we know that our Lord was in fact descended from 
David? Our scribe answers by writing in Luke ii. 5 Jdecause 
they were both |i.e. Mary as well as Joseph] of the house of 
David’. 


1 In the Academy of Nov. 17, p. 401. 

2 According to Mr. Burkitt (inthe Guardian, Oct. 31, 1894, p. 1707) this 
reading is also that of Tatian’s Dzatessaron, it being one of the‘ remarkable 
coincidences’ between it and Cod. Sin. But it isnot the reading of the Arabic 
version (Hamlyn Hill’s trans., p. 47). Ephraim, it is true, writes a/zo /oco 
eadem scriptura dixit utrumgque, Tosephum et Mariam, esse ex domo David 
(Evang. Concord. Expos.ed Moesinger, p. 16), but as it occurs in his com- 
ments on the annunciation, the eadem may justify Moesinger in referring it to 
i. 27, instead of ii. 4. It might indeed be Ephraim’s own inference from the 
different utterances of scripture, as he is occupied in meeting the difficulty 
mentioned above. It is at times hard to know what is Tatian and what is 
Ephraim. Thus on p. 1708 Mr. Burkitt assumes that Tatian read and cast 
him down in St. Luke iv. 29. Ephraim certainly believed that the men of 
Nazareth did cast him down, for zzsesrexerunt contra eum et apprehen- 


296 Dissertations. 


(8) In St. Luke ii. 33 where he follows the Greek text he also 
has hes father and his mother, but in ver. 39 where he paraphrases 
they, he says Joseph and Mary. 

(c) His high estimation of virginity is shown by the substitu- 
tion of days for_years in the description of Hlanna the prophetess, 
who was [aged] many days, and seven days only was she with her 
husband after her virginity (St. Luke ii. 36). 

The result however of this juxtaposition of phrases is to leave 
us with an inconsistency. But is it not an inconsistency with 
which we are familiar and which is indeed inevitable? It has 
been shown in Dissertation I (§ 2)—-and proof is hardly needed 
—that the fact of the virgin birth must have remained a secret, 
‘kept and pondered on’ in the hearts of Joseph and Mary alone, 
certainly during our Lord’s own life. Jesus must have passed 
among his fellow-countrymen for the son of Joseph; Joseph 
must have been reckoned his father. This must have led to 
a use of language, which could not have been wholly discarded, 
even when the narrative of the virgin birth itself was made 
public in the Gospels. Thus on the pages of our English bibles 
still remain expressions such as these—/oseph the husband of 
Mary, Joseph her husband, Mary thy wife, hts wife (St. Matt. 
i. 16, 19, 20, 24), the parents, his parents, thy father and L 
(St. Luke ii. 27, 41, 48, also As father and his mother, ver. 33 
R.V.), Ls nol this the carpenter's son? Is not this Jesus the son 
of Joseph ? (St. Matt. xii. 55, St. John vi. 42), Jesus of Nazareth, 
the son of Joseph’ (St. John i. 45). These readings present 
no difficulty to us because of our familiarity with them, and 
the new readings of Cod. Sin. may well be but an extension of 
the same phenomenon. They all occur in that part of the 
Gospel which is evidently based on Aramaic documents, docu- 
ments, that is, written fora Jewish public. But it was just to the 


dentes eduxerunt et detruserunt eum (Moes. pp. 130-1); but it may have 
been his own inference or exegesis, as in the Arabic version we read ¢ha/ 
they might cast him from its summit (H. Hill, p. 113). 

' These are the words of Philip of Bethsaida, as the preceding questions 
were asked by the Jews and Galilaeans. 


A ppended Notes. B. 297 


Jews that at the beginning our Lord would pass, externally, as 
the son of Joseph. The most decisive expression is found at the 
end of the genealogy. But again it was just the contemporary 
Jews who would require genealogical proof that our Lord was 
of ‘the house of David.’ Thus we could readily imagine that the 
earliest genealogies of Jesus the Christ, whether drawn up for 
public evidence of His Davidic descent or for the private satisfac- 
tion of his relatives, would very likely end with the words and 
Joseph begat Jesus the Christ: and remembering the putative use 
allowed by the Jews in genealogical reckonings, according to 
which under certain circumstances a man would be reckoned 
the ‘son’ of his father’s brother’, one who does believe in the 
virgin birth need not find in such an expression a harder saying 
than, e.g. the words Joram begat Ozzas (ver. 8). But later, when 
the immediate need of proof of the Davidic descent passed away , 
and Gentile converts not familiar with Jewish genealogizing 
might mistake the meaning of the phrase, the Evangelist would 
naturally recast it. And that the form of the text in Cod. Sin. 
is not that in which it left the Evangelist’s hands we shall have 
reason to see from our examination of the prior problem—What 
is the value of the new text? 


il 


At first sight the peculiar readings of Cod. Sin. seem to be 
relics or survivals of the primitive or original history of the 
nativity, which as presenting a simply naturalistic account has 
on dogmatic grounds been so altered that it would have wholly 
disappeared, but for the discovery of these as it were ‘ fragments 
of an earlier world’ in Cod. Sin., which thus reveals a stage in 
the process of correction. But on an examination of the read- 
ings in detail they lose their primitive character. We have seen 


1 Cf. St. Matt. xxii. 23-28. 


298 Dissertations. 


that original documents of the genealogy may well have ended 
with some such phrase as Joseph begat Jesus: but that the read- 
ings of Cod. Sin. represent the original text of the Gospel seems 
highly improbable. 

Taking them in the reverse order (1) the omission of Anew her 
not until in ver. 25 is without support, if we accept cod. bob- 
iensis (2). But this agreement, if not accidental, is to be ascribed 
to the same, and most obvious, mo/zf in each case, viz. a desire 
of the scribe to safeguard the (perpetual) virginity of Mary as 
mentioned above. On this ground, and still more on external 
grounds (the Philonian use of the phrase), Mr. Conybeare’ thinks 
the omission is not original. Indeed it would be hard to find 
a reason for the interpolation of the missing phrase, if not 
original. 

(2) The next variation to consider would be the datives 
/o thee, to him in vers. 21,25. Cur. has Zo ¢hee in ver. 21, other- 
wise they are also without support, and the addition of such 
datives seems to be a characteristic of the version, at least in the 
next two chapters we have 4o them (ii. 7), fo them (12), unto him 
(13), 4o him (16), to him (20), his (garner, ili. 12) unto him (14), 
fo him (17). In relation to the virgin birth they are not really 
significant: for such ethical datives would be amply satisfied by 
the position of Joseph as foster-father. 

(3) The case seems different with ver. 16. The Greek text of 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort runs thus: "Taxa de éyévvyoev 
tov Iwond tov avdpa Mapias, €& ps éyevvn Oy “Incots 6 Aeyopevos 
Xpioroes, but Cod. Sin. has and Joseph to whom was betrothed 
Mary the Virgin begat Jesus who ws called the Christ, and for 
this reading there is a certain amount of attestation”; viz. 
among the versions (a) and Greek cursives of the Ferrar 
group (b). 

‘ Academy, Dec. 8, 1894, p. 474. For the question about Philo, see 
Diss. I, pp. 61-63. 

* For the Latin readings I am indebted to the conspectus of Rev. W. C. 


Allen in Academy, Dec. 15; his account of the Greek cursives must be 
corrected by Dr. Rahlfs’ information, given in Academy, Jan. 26, 1895. 


Appended Notes. B. 299 
(a) 


syr. Cur. he to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, she who 
bare Jesus the Messiah. 


Lat. vet. 

a (cod. vercell. s. iv) cut desponsata virgo Maria genuit 
Lesum quit dicitur Christus. 

6 (cod. veron. s. v) cut desponsata eral virgo Maria, 
virgo autem Maria genuit Lesum 
Christum. 

c (cod. colbert. s. xii) cut desponsata virgo Maria, Maria 
autem genuit Lesum quit dicitur 
Christus. 

d (cod. bezae s. vi) cut desponsala virgo Maria peperit 


Christum Tesum. 

&, (cod. sangerm. 1. s. vili) cut desponsata virgo Maria genuit 
Lesum quit vocatur Christus. 

k (cod. bobiens. s. v) cut desponsata virgo Maria genutt 
Tesum Christum. 

q (cod. monac. s. vi) cut desponsata Maria genuit Lesum 
gut vocatur Christus. 


Arm. ‘cut desponsata virgo Maria genuit, similiter ... arm’ 


Giisch: ed. vill"). 
(b) 


codd. 346, 556 scr (=543 greg)! 6 prnotevOjoa [sic] rapbevos 
Mapiip éyevvncev “Inootv tov Acyopevov Xpuorov. 


Here there is some attestation, but we see at once that the 
support is given, not to the part of the reading which bears the 
appearance of originality (as shown above), Joseph begat Jesus 
—but to that part which makes us suspect its secondary 
character, /o whom was espoused Mary the virgin. Why was 


1 The beginning of St. Matthew is wanting in codd. 13, 69, while 124 has 
the usual reading (Rahlfs). 


300 Dissertations. 


espoused here—especially when in Luke li. 5 against the Greek 
mss. (Azs espoused) our writer has Mary his wife? Compared 
with was espoused (éuvnorevd6n) the Greek reading tov dyvdpa 
Mapias is much more primitive from its very boldness. It would 
have been difficult to find a scribe to substitute the latter, had 
he found éuvyorevOy in his text. Again why fhe virgin? In 
the Greek Gospels Mary is only spoken of as a virgzn, referring 
to her condition at the time; nowhere does she bear the name 
of “he virgin as atitle. Taken with the omission of knew her 
not (ver. 25), it can but be ascribed to the tendency mentioned 
above—the high emphasis on virginity and @ /fortiord of Mary’s 
virginity. 

On the other hand the internal evidence really supports 
the priority of the Greek reading. ‘The symmetry of the three- 
fold division of the genealogy leads us to expect an expansion or 
fuller phrase at the end of the third as at the end of the first and 
second divisions, while in particular tov “Iwo Tov avdpa Mapias 
is quite analogous to tov Aaveid rov BactAéa. Again the mention 
of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, leads the way for the men- 
tion of Mary. But why should Mary be mentioned unless there 
was something special in her case as in theirs? and if she was to 
be mentioned and it was an ordinary case of paternity, as we 
had éyévvnoev ex THs Odpap, ex THs “PaxaB, ex THs “PovO, ex THs 
tov Oipiov, why did our scribe not give the Syriac for "Iwai 
eyevvnoev Incotv éx THs Mapias? Instead he interpolates a phrase 
which verbally stands in no connexion with the birth—zo whom 
was espoused Mary the virgin, while the Greek text retains the 
ex Which we expected, and the connexion of Mary with the 
child—eé js éyevvny. We must remember the freedom of 
translation in the early versions’, and the particular phrase we 


* In the case both of Cur. and Cod. Sin. this character of the translation 
is well brought out by Fr. M.-J. Lagrange in the Revue Aiblique of July, 
1895. ‘Cur. et Sin. traduisent par a peu pres, ne se souciant que du sens 
qwils atteignent en général directement, sans chercher le moins du monde a 
serrer le texte. ... Il en résulte qu’ils ne s’efforcent point de rendre un passif 
par un passif, de traduire les mots qui n’importent pas au sens, lors méme 


A ppended Notes. B. gor 


are discussing is found also in the Cur. Syr. and early Lat. 
versions without, as far as I know, any special claim for it to be 
original having hitherto been made. To repeat, as it stands in 
Cod. Sin., the sentence /o whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, 
without the supposition that Mary fulfilled some special or 
unique réle in relation to the birth, is quite meaningless. 

On these grounds then, internal as well as external, we feel 
no hesitation in accepting the Greek as the original text and 
that of Cod. Sin. as secondary. And to this conclusion 
Dr. Sanday apparently inclines: at the end of an investigation 
he writes’: ‘But having got back so near to the text of the 
Greek mss., it would be natural to ask whether we ought ever 
to have left them. As a rule, where there is paraphrase it is 
the western text which paraphrases. So that at the present 
moment I lean to the opinion that the traditional text need not 
be altered.’ 

This examination of the readings in detail has rendered 
unnecessary a discussion of what is really the first question of 
all— What is the value of the version given by Cod. Sin. and of 
its text as a whole? But indeed such discussion must be left to 
Syriac specialists, and it is altogether too premature to look for 
any certain or unanimous conclusions at present. We must be 
content to wait. 

There is however a point on which something can be said 
at once. It has been suggested that the codex was written by 
a scribe who was a heretic or at least of heretical tendencies. 
The argument has been most fully put together in an article in 
the Church Quarterly Review of April, 1895 (pp. 113, 114), 
but the writer cannot be considered to have proved his point. It 
is true that the ms. has undergone violent treatment. It was 


que la tournure est plus sémitique que grecque. // réfondit (prit la parole) 
et dit, est simplement rendu: 2/ dit. A plus forte raison ne tiennent-ils 
pas des particules grecques, comme 8é, qui est, ou passé sous silence, ou 
traduit par la copule... Liberté, négligence, vulgarité du style sont des 
caractéres trop accuses pour laisser place au doute’ (pp. 402, 3). 

1 Academy, Jan. 5, 1895. 


302 Dissertations. 


‘pulled to pieces'’: in one place there are signs of erasure by 
a knife’; and seventeen leaves are missing*. But the treatment 
does not suggest anything more than would have been suffered 
by any ms. in the course of being used for a palimpsest: and 
the fact that the version was rough and free, and had for some 
centuries been superseded by an exacter version (the Peshitta) 
—in a word the fact that it was not ‘a work of high repute,’ 
would have been a sufficient excuse for John the Recluse to make 
use of it for his own literary purposes in a.p. 778. It is however 
in the presentation of the internal evidence that the reviewer is 
most inconclusive. One of his instances, St. Luke ix. 35 my son 
the chosen, occurs in the text of our R.V.; and can there be any 
difference between she son of Joseph and she carpenter's son 
(St. Matt. xili. 55), between as he was called and as was supposed 
(St. Luke iii, 23), between my Son and my beloved and my beloved 
Son (St. Matt. ii. 147, St. Luke mi. 22, St. Mark ix.7)? Someof 
his omissions are mentioned in the margin of the R.V. as having 
authority, e.g. in St. Luke xxiv. 51, St. Mark xvi. 9-20, and 
St. Matt. xxiv. 36. In the last instance not only was the absence 
of nezther the Son a reading favoured by certain catholic fathers‘, 
but it is neutralized by the presence of the words in St. Mark 
xlil. 32. Other readings have support in the old Latin versions 
—St. Luke ii. 5, St. John i. 34, or in the Curetonian—St. John 
vi. 47. That after our Lord’s baptism the Holy Spirit adode 
upon him (St. Matt. iii. 16) is surely orthodox doctrine, being 
that of St. John (i. 32). The only passages left are St. John iii. 
13 which is from heaven, viii. 58 L have been, ili. 18 only son 
(omitting only begotten), and St. Matt. xxvii. 50 Azs spirel went up. 
From this evidence it is surely not possible to find our scribe 
guilty of ‘ heresy.’ 

' Mrs. Lewis, 77amnslatzon, introd. p. xix. mee (/Pey oP ee 

’ In fact 11 sheets (=22 leaves) are missing, but as 2 sheets were taken 
from the beginning and 3 from the end of the Gospel, 5 leaves would be 
without any of the Gospel text. This looks as if the objectionable matter 
(if such there was) was outside the Gospels. But would it not have seemed 


the most obvious way to get rid of such matter by writing over it ? 
> Bee pp. 128,136. 


Appended Notes. C. 303 


Os 


ON THE PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF ST. JOHN 
vi. 63 TO TINEYMA ECTIN TO ZWOTIOIOYN, M1 GApzZ OYK Wedel 


> la 5 \ c , a . \ Ul ¢ ” na ’ > ‘ 
OYAEN’ TA DHMaT& A ETW AEASAHKA YMIN TINEYMA EGTIN Kal 


\ 2 


f, 7 >) > c a) ‘ a > ’ 
ZWH ECTIN’ AAAA EIGIN EZ YMOON TINEC O1 OY TIIGTEYOYGIN. 


Ir is possible to interpret these words as explaining away 
the previous discourse—as meaning that what is to profit is not 
really the flesh and blood of our Lord but simply His spiritual, 
life-giving utterances received and interpreted by faith. The 
following patristic passages appear to favour this view : 

Tertullian, de Res. Carn. 37. He is arguing against gnostics 
who pleaded the words ‘ the flesh profiteth nothing ’ as a ground 
for disparaging the flesh of Christ. The flesh, replies ‘Tertul- 
lian, is only disparaged from one point of view, that is as 
a source of life. It is spirit, says our Lord, not flesh, that gives 
life. ‘Exsequitur etiam, quid velit intelligi spiritum: verda, quae 
locutus sum vobts, spiritus sunt; sicut et supra: gu audit 
sermones meos, et credit tn eum qui me misit, habet vitam aelernam 
et in tudicium non ventet, sed transtet de morte ad vitam. Itaque 
sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita sermo, 
eundem etiam carnem suam dixit, quia et sermo caro erat factus, 
proinde in causam vitae appetendus et devorandus auditu et 
ruminandus intellectu et fide digerendus.’ 


304 Drssertations. 


Eusebius of Caesarea, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 12. He is arguing 
against Marcellus who urged the passage of St. John as carrying 
with it the conclusion that the ‘unprofitable’ flesh of Christ 
would not be eternally permanent, and he interprets thus: 6 
dv éraidevey attovs TrvevpatikOs akovew TOV TEpl THS TapKos Kat 
Tov aipatos atTov Nedeypevwv’ iy yap THY TapKa HY TepiKetpor 

/ (A / c bé Sian EY / XN \ > \ \ 
vopuionte pe AEeyev, ws d€ov aditiv éoblew, pnde TO aicOnTov Kal 

\ e / ¢ / / , > ) > 

THWLATLKOV ala Tivew vroAapPaveTe pe TpOTTATTELV, GAN ev loTE 
OTL TA Pypatd pou & AeAdAnka buiv trvetpd eotr kal Lwy €or’ 
7 > \ > XN ed \ \ / “J An X / ‘\ \ 
WOTE QUTA EVAL TA pHUaTa Kal TOS AOYOUS aL’TOD THY TApKA Kal TO 
aipa, av & petéxwv del, Ooavel Gptw oipaviw tpepopevos, THs 
ovpaviov pebeser Cwijs. 

Macarius Magnes, Apocrificus ill. 23 (p. 105) odpxes ovv Kat 

= A Oe: a / XN \ Vn \ ‘\ 
a'pa Tod Xpiotod yrou THs codpias (ravtov yap Kal 6 Xpiords Kal 
) copia) ot THS Kays Kal tadaLds SiabyKns GAAyyopiKds Aehady- 
pevor NGyoL, ods Xp Tpwyew peA€Ty Kal TéTTELWV ev TH youn 
Siapvnpovevovtas Kat Conv e€& aitav od mpdcKaipoy GAN exe 
aiwviov. ovttws ‘Tepeutas eis TO oTdpa To's Adyous eK THs KXELpoS 
THs copias deEdpevos ehaye Kat hayav eoxe Conv’ ottws “leLexupr 
/ J XN 2) / \ \ \ an , 
keharida Adywv Payov éyAvKaiveTo Kal TO TiKpov THS Tapovoys 

A > , E Y ¢ > A Cae , \ , 
lwns dmreBddXeTo" ovTws 6 Kal’ eva TOV ayiwy Kai ToTE Kal TaAaL 
kal avOis Kal petéreita THY TdpKA THS Topias Tpwywv Kal TO aipa 
Kal TivwV, TOUTETTL THY yvOow adits Kal THY aroKaAvw ev éavTO 
dexouevos, eLnoe Tov aid@va Kat Cav ob Anker ToTE. od yap jLovots 
tots pabyrats édidov THv cdpKxa phayelv THY oikelay EavTOd Kal Truely 
dpotws TO aipa (7) yap av Holker TOTO ToLdy KaLpiws TLol pev Tap- 
ff \ SN > Vs \ 37 \ > Lh lal = 4 
exwv, Tiat d€ od mpuTavevwv THY alwviov Cwnv) GAAG TaoW Spotws 
c / > 5 / \ tal ce “A vd > an \ 
dolois dvdpact Kal mpopyTiKots O“od TavTnv aAAnYopLKOs THY 
outapxlav édwKev’. 

Amalarius of Metz has been cited above p. 235, n. I, as inter- 
preting the eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood to mean 


‘ It may be mentioned (as this author is not easily accessible, not being 
included in Migne’s Patrology) that the whole of the passage from which 
the above is quoted is paraphrased in Dict. of Chr. Liog. iii. 770, s. v. 
MACARIUS. 


Appended Notes. C. 305 


believing in His passion. This probably implies that he inter- 
preted St. John vi. 63 to mean: ‘what will profit you is not to 
eat my flesh but to believe my words.’ 


rhe 


On the other hand the words may be interpreted in such 
a way as not to practically overthrow the whole previous dis- 
course: they may be interpreted to mean that mere flesh profits 
nothing, but that ‘the things of which I (Jesus) have been 
speaking ’—the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, ascended 
and glorified (see ver. 62)—are not mere flesh, but spirit and 
(therefore) life. So St. Paul calls the ascended Christ ‘ life- 
giving spirit’ in a passage where the permanence of His human 
body is strongly implied, 1 Cor. xv. 45-50. This interpreta- 
tion is illustrated by the following passages : 

Athanasius, Lp. iv ad Serapion. 19 (P. G. xxvi. p. 665) Kat 
evTava yap aupotepa rept éavTod eipnKe, odpka Kal Tvedpa* Kal 
TO TVvEvp"a POS TO KATA GdpKa diécTELrEV, iva p17) MOVOV TO haLvo- 
pevov, GAAG Kal TO adpatov aitod micTevoavTes pabwow, OTL Kal & 
Neyer odK EoTL GapKiKd, GANA TVEVpATLKG* TOTOLS Yap pKEL TO 
capa mpos Bpaow, iva Kat TOD KdopoV TaYTOS TOLTO Tpopy yevyTaL ; 
GAAG Oia TOTO THs Eis OVpavos avaBacews euvNMovEevTE TOU vi0d 
Tov avOpwrov, va THS TwpaTiKns evvoias avTovs adeAK’oyn Kal 
Aourov THY cipnpevnv capxa Bpdow avwbev oipdaviov Kal TvEevpart- 
Kyv tpodyv map avTod Sidopevyv pdbwow. & yap hehddyka, hyo, 
piv mvedpa €ote kal Loy. cov 7G cizeiv’ 70 pev decxvipevov Kal 
Siddpevov trép THs TOD Kdcpov GwTypias éoTly 7) TAapE iv eyo hopa* 
GAN atry iptv cat To tavrys aia rap’ €uod rvevpatixds dobycerar 
Tpopy*’ WoTe TVEVvMATLKaS €V ExdoTw TAvTHV avadioocbGat Kat 
yiver Oar rao pudaxtypiov eis dvactacw Cwrs aiwviov. 

Apollinarius quoted by Leontius Byzant. adv. Lraud. Apol- 
linaristarum (P. G. \xxxvi. p. 1964) Cworoet d€ quads ) cap& 

Xx 


306 Dissertations. 


> ~ \ A Vd > “ / ot BY ‘ \ oo (ee 
avTovd, dua THY GvVOVTLWLEVAV adiTH GedtyTa’ TO dé Cworro.dv Heikov 
Geixy) dpa oapé, OTe Ged avvypOn* Kali airy pev cwler, Hels de 
cwlopeba peTexovTes aiTHns MoTeEpEl Tpodis. 

Cyril of Alexandria, 27 Joan. vi. 64 (P. G. Ixxiii. p. 601) 
ov opddpa, dyciv, dovvéetws TO py SvvacOat Cwororety repiTebeikate 
TH gapki. OTav yap povn vontar Kal éavtTnv 7 THS TapKos Pivots 
Tws, ovk ectat OndovoTe Cworrods’ Cwoyovycer pev yap Te TOV 
»” > na a \ wn > \ Lal ~ > / 
dvTwv ovdapdas, detrar d€ wadAov aity Tod Cwoyovety ioyVvovTos. .. . 
ereto1) yap nvwtat TO CwororovvTe AOyw, yeyovev OAn Cwomo.ds pds 
tiv Tov BeAtioves avadpapotoa O’vapuv, OK aiTH Tpds TiV idiav 
Biacapevn piow Tov oidap0bev HTTwpyEevov. Kav aobevy Tovyapodtv 
9 THS GapKos Piats, Ooov HKeV eis EavTHV, eis TO OVvacbar Cworrorety, 
3 > 5 5) /, lal \ \ »” / X o 
aX\X otv évepynoe TovtTo Tov Cworowv €xovoa Aoyov Kat OAnV 
avTov Tiv évéepyeiay Odivovda. THpa yap €ote THS KaTA pivow Cwis 
Kal odx EVOs TLVOS TOV GIO THS ys, ep ovTep av Kal icxdoar diKaiws 
TO H Gaps odK Opedet ovdev. ov yap 7 Lavrov tvxdv, GAN ovde 7 
Ilérpov, nyovv érépov Twos TovTo ev Hiv épydaoeta’ povy Oe Kal 
eEaipeTws 7) TOD TWTHPOS NuaV Xpiotod, ev @ KaTwOKYGE TaV TO TAN- 
pwopa THS GedTnTOs TwpaTiKOs. Kal yap av Elin TOV aTOTwWTATwY TO 

‘\ / ~ 3 7 \ / \ \ \ 307 > / 
pev péXt TOts OVK EXoVoL KaTA pow TO yAVKY THY diay eriTOevat 
TOLUTHTA Kal €is EAVTO peTacKEvale TO Orep AV dvapioyyTaL, THY 
d€ Tov Geod Adyou Cworowdv diow pay avakopile olerOar pos TO 
+> > \ pel 23 > / 4 > an > \ \ a y+” 
ldvov ayabov TO év Orrep evoKnoe TOA. ovdKOdV ert pev TOV dAAWY 
¢ tA 3 \ ” / 4 ¢€ NX 3 > ™~ 3 / > / 
aravtwv adnOys eotar AOyos OT 7) TAapE odK Aderet ovdev, aTovATEL 
dé ert povov Tov Xpiorod, dua TO ev aitH KatouKnoa THY Conv, TOUT 
EOTL TOV JLOVOYEVT). 

Cyril’s language in this passage appears to be influenced by 
that of Apollinarius. 

Hilary, de Trin. viii. 14 ‘ De veritate carnis et sanguinis non 
relictus est ambigendi locus. Nunc enim et ipsius Domini 
professione et fide nostra vere caro est et vere sanguis est. Et 
haec accepta atque hausta id efficiunt, ut et nos in Christo et 
Christus in nobis sit. Anne hoc veritas non est?’ 

Augustine, 77 Joannis Evang. Tract. xxvii. 5 ‘Quid est ergo 
quod adiungit: Spzritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quid- 


Appended Notes. C. 307 


quam? Wicamus ei (patitur enim nos non contradicentes, sed 
nosse cupientes): O Domine, magister bone, quomodo caro 
non prodest guidquam, cum tu dixeris: msz gus manducaverit 
carnem meam, et bibertt sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam? 
An vita non prodest quidquam? et propter quid sumus quod 
sumus, nisi ut habeamus vitam aeternam, quam tua carne 
promittis? Quid est ergo, mon prodest quidguam caro? Non 
prodest quidquam, sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: carnem 
quippe sic intellexerunt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur aut in 
macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Proinde sic 
dictum est caro non prodest quidguam, quomodo dictum est 
screntia inflat, Iam ergo debemus odisse scientiam? absit. Et 
quid est, sczenfza inflat? sola, sine charitate. Ideo adiunxit: 
charitas vero aedificat. Adde ergo scientiae charitatem, et utilis 
erit scientia: non per se, sed per charitatem. Sic etiam nunc, 
caro non prodest quidguam sed sola caro: accedat spiritus ad 
carnem, quomodo accedit charitas ad scientiam, et prodest 
plurimum. Nam si caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non 
fieret, ut inhabitaret in nobis. Si per carnem nobis multum 
profuit Christus, quomodo caro nihil prodest? Sed per carnem 
Spiritus aliquid pro salute nostra egit. Caro vas fuit: quod 
habebat attende, non quod erat. Apostoli missi sunt, numquid 
caro ipsorum nobis nihil profuit? Si caro apostolorum nobis 
profuit, caro Domini potuit nihil prodesse? Unde enim ad nos 
sonus verbi, nisi per vocem carnis? unde stylus, unde con- 
scriptio? Ista omnia opera carnis sunt, sed agitante spiritu 
tanquam organum suum. Svzrz/us ergo est gui vivifical, caro 
autem non prodest quidguam: sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non 
sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam. 

But he goes on (after an interval) ‘Verba quae ego locutus 
sum vobts, spiritus et vita sunt. Quid est, sperztus ef vita sunt? 
Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. Intellexisti spiritualiter? Spzrz/us 
et vita sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? Etiam sic illa spzrzfus ef 
vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt.’ 


308 Dissertations. 


Ibs 


TERTULLIAN’S DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 


THE above dissertation is only intended to cover a certain 
period of the history of eucharistic doctrine with which Ter- 
tullian has nothing to do. But there is so little that appears to 
be trustworthy written about Tertullian’s eucharistic doctrine, 
and it is at the same time so often controversially referred to, 
that I have thought I might be forgiven in summarizing his 
teaching. 

Four preliminary propositions may be safely made as regards 
the teaching of Tertullian. He contends strongly— 

(1) That Christ as He is now in heavenly glory is still in the 
flesh: see de Carne Christi 24 ‘et videbunt et agnoscent qui 
eum confixerunt utique ipsam carnem in quam saevierunt, sine 
qua nec ipse esse poterit nec agnosci.’ 

(2) That it is to the still human Christ thus glorified in the 
flesh that we Christians are united by His Spirit. Christ dwells 
in each individual Christian, and the Church as a whole is 
Christ: see de Fuga to *Christum indutus es siquidem in 
Christum tinctus es: [Christus] in te est.’ de Poenzt. 10 ‘in uno 
et altero ecclesia est: ecclesia vero Christus. ergo cum te ad 
fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras.’ 
de Orat. 6 ‘ perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individui- 
tatem a corpore eius.’ 

(3) That the link between Christ and his people is a bodily 
link (see de Pudicz/. 6 corporis nexus). It is this because of the 
sacramental principle. A sacrament is a physical means of 
spiritual grace: because it is physical, it appeals to us through 
our bodies (and in this Tertullian finds a pledge for our bodily 


A ppended Notes. D. 309 


resurrection) : cp. de Res. Carnis 8 ‘cum anima [in Christo] Deo 
allegitur ipsa [caro | est quae efficit ut anima allegi possit. 
Scilicet’ caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur: caro ungitur ut 
anima consecretur: caro signatur ut et anima muniatur: caro 
manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur : 
caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo 
saginetur. In this sacramental principle and its accompanying 
obligation Tertullian sees one special outcome of the Incarnation, 
‘vestimentum quodammodo fidei quae retro nuda erat... . ob- 
strinxit fidem ad baptismi necessitatem’ (de Bapt. 13). And in 
the simplicity of the sacramental rites, which contrasts with the 
imposing apparatus of pagan mysteries, he sees a special evidence 
of the divine attributes of simplicity and power (de Bapv. 2). 

(4) That the sacraments of the Church are thus outward 
channels of spiritual grace, the spiritual grace of the risen and 
glorified Christ; see de Lapt. 11, where it is stated that the 
baptism of Christ was only like John the Baptist’s till after the 
resurrection—‘nondum adimpleta gloria Domini nec instructa 
efficacia lavacri per passionem et resurrectionem.,’ 

Coming now to the eucharist in particular, it is quite certain 
that Tertullian believed the consecrated bread and wine to be 
both channels and veils of a divine gift and presence ; channels 
through which we are ‘fed with the fatness of God’ (cf. de Res. 
8 cited above), and also veils of the divine gift thus communi- 
cated to us. Thus the bread zs the body of Christ, see de Orat. 
14 ‘accepto corpore Domini et reservato, It is believed by 
Christians to be something which the heathen do not believe it to 
be: ad Uxor. ii. & ‘non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem 
cibum gustes? et si sciverit panem non illum credit esse qui 
dicitur.. Thus they show great anxiety to prevent a crumb or 
drop of the sacred bread and wine falling to the ground, de Cor. 
Militis 3 ‘calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram 
anxie patimur.’ The body of Christ is ‘given’ and ‘taken’ as 
well as ‘eaten,’ see de Jdol. 7 ‘manus admovere corpori Domini.’ 
Thus inconsistent Christians still ‘quotidie corpus eius lacessunt.’ 


310 Dissertations. 


But in what sense are the bread and wine the body and blood 
of Christ? or in other words, what is the exact nature of the 
unseen spiritual presence in the eucharist? The obvious 
answer in accordance with Christian belief is that it is the body 
(or flesh) and blood of Christ, present after a spiritual and 
heavenly manner. So Tertullian speaks of our being fed 
‘opimitate dominici corporis, eucharistia scilicet’ (de Pudicit. 9). 
Again he says (adv. Marcion. i. 14) that Christ ‘makes his 
body present by means of bread (panem quo ipsum corpus 
suum repraesentat).’ epraesentare in Tertullian continually and 
constantly means /o make actually present over again (on the 
force of re- see adv. Marcion. v. 9). ‘Thus adv. Marcion. v. 12 
‘repraesentatio corporum’ is used of the last judgement; iii. 7 
Christ's second advent is the ‘secunda repraesentatio’; when 
on earth He effected a cure, He is said ‘ repraesentare curatio- 
nem’ (iv. 9). Cf. adv. Praxean 24: the Son strictly cannot be 
said ‘repraesentare Patrem,’ i.e. to make the Father actually 
present, for He is personally distinct from the Father: but He 
‘representat Deum, i.e. makes God actually present, because He 
is God and is the ‘ vicarius’ (or representative) of the Father. 
Cf. also: adv. Marcion, iii. Bo, 24, Iv. 6) 14, 22, 29)/25- 

On the other hand in de Res. Carnis 8 (already quoted), the 
body and blood of Christ were put in line with the outward parts 
.in the other sacraments, while the inward gift was described as 
the ‘fatness of God,’ i.e. the divine life. The question arises 
then: Does Tertullian regard the inward gift and presence of 
the eucharist as purely the gift and presence of the divine 
Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus finding Himself a new symbolical 
‘embodiment’ in the bread and wine, which are hence cad/ed 
His body and blood? This would be borne out by a curious 
passage, adv. Marcion. iv. 40. Marcion had apparently argued 
against the material reality of Christ’s human body from the fact 
that He could call bread His body. No, replies Tertullian, the 
eucharistic body only witnesses to the real body as figure to 
substance—‘acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus 


Appended Notes. D. 311 


suum illum fecit, oc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura cor- 
poris mei: figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus.’ 
He goes on to say that there is analogy for Christ calling bread 
His body in the fact that Jeremiah (according to the old Latin 
reading of Jer. xi. 19) had prophesied of His body under the 
term bread, ‘ conzcramus lignum in panem etus, scilicet crucem in 
corpus eius.’ ‘Then he proves the carnal reality of Christ’s body 
from the fact that it is accompanied with blood, Zhzs 7s my 
body is followed by TZhzs is my blood. ‘Consistit probatio 
corporis de testimonio carnis, probatio carnis de testimonio 
sanguinis.’ But again he seems to give a figurative meaning to 
the eucharistic blood, pointing out how wine in the Old Testa- 
ment is several times called blood—‘the blood of the grape,’ 
&c. There is a similar but briefer passage earlier in the same 
work, adv. Marcion. iil. 19. 

These passages certainly suggest not that Tertullian believed 
in no real presence in the sacramental elements, for that would 
be contrary to so much that he says elsewhere, but that he 
believed the bread to be symbolically called the body of Christ 
because it ‘embodied’ a presence and gift of His Spirit. And 
this view is not decisively contradicted by anything else in his 
writings’. In a somewhat different way the wine would be 
called symbolically Christ’s blood, because it embodies a spiri- 
tual gift of divine life from Christ. But it may still be said: the 
spiritual gift thus conveyed is not merely a gift consisting in the 
spirit of Christ, but a gift of Christ’s spiritualized flesh and 
blood, that is a gift of His manhood and not barely of His God- 
head. In this case the outward vehicles would still remain 
what they were, syméols of the inward reality which they con- 
vey. It is in this sense that the outward sacramental elements 


1 No argument, one way or another, can be founded on the expression, 
de Orat. 6 ‘corpus eius in pane censetur: hoc est corpus meum.’ Censeri 
has at least no necessary idea of symbolism attaching to it: cp. de Baft. 5 
‘ similitudo [Dei] in aeternitate [hominis] censetur,’ i. e. the divine similitude 
is found (really existing) in man’s immortality. 


312 Dissertations. 


are continually called ‘symbols’ or ‘signs’ or ‘ figures’ in 
Catholic theology—i.e. efficacza sygna, which effect or convey 
what they symbolize. The bread would symbolize Christ’s 
body, because it ‘embodies’ the flesh or spiritual essence of His 
manhood, and the wine would embody, as well as symbolize, 
the spiritual blood, the ‘blood which is the life” We cannot 
bring ourselves to doubt that Tertullian, if confronted with this 
question, must have accepted it and not regarded the gifts of the 
eucharist as gifts independent of Christ’s abiding manhood. 
But it has to be remembered on the other hand that he appears 
(as cited in app. note C, p. 303) to believe that in St. John vi 
Christ’s ‘ flesh and blood’ means no more than His life-giving 
words to be received in faith. 

It is perhaps safest to assume that Tertullian was uncertain 
in his own mind as to the exact meaning which he assigned to 
the eucharistic language of the Church and the exact nature 
which he attributed to the eucharistic gifts. The tradition of the 
Church taught that the consecrated bread and wine are the body 
and blood of Christ: and different Church teachers did their 
best to interpret this doctrine. 


PNDICES 





HOLY SCRIPTURE 


Acts of the Apostles LAs T5525 
76, 161 (mats xupiov) 


Acts i. 7 84, 115-6, 136 
angelic appearances 21-27 
Apocalypse 9, 54 
Apocryphal Gospels 50, 60 
apostolic preaching G, 415/03 
baptism of Christ 78, 113, 


187, cf 309 
body of Christ 
mystical s11 07 Pa te oe 
136, 158, 233n, 245, 266 
sacramental 239n, 230n, 
241, 244-5, 310-1 
brethren (and relatives) of Christ 


1s 20,139 

Chagigah 4on 
Colosstans i. 17 gI 
il. 3 90, 133, 136 

ii. g 90, 187 
conversion 66 
1 Corinthians x. 1-4 243 
x1, 26-28 269 

xi. 29 ©6234, 255n 

xv. 25 117, 126-7 

KV re i 

2 Corinthians viil. 9 89-90, 184 
mi 2 125 


Cyrenius 19 


David, davidic 20, 34, 38, 78n 


diabolic agency 24-26 
faith in Christ 82-3, 169 
the FATHER giving the son 

QI, 210 
Galatians iv. 22, 29 62 
Genests Xi. 5 I29n 


EXi. I, KEV21, Skiks 30 Ga 


Ep. to the Hebrews 535705 
82-3, 91-2, 102, 189 

Hebrews i. 3 gi 
iv. 15 79, 141 

Heli 39 
Herod 10, 20, 29-30 
Hosea xi. I 33 


infallibility (and impeccability) of 


Christ 73, 80, 96, 187, 208-9 
Isaiah vii. 14 35, 289-90 
vii. 15, 16 118 

Ix. 3 34 

St. James 17, 54 
Jeremiah i. 6 118-9 
iil. 4 62 

xl. 19 311 

XXxi. 15 33 

Jewish Christianity 49, 51, 53-4 


316 


4, 17, 58, 
60, 78-9, 309 
St. John Evangelist 7-10, 17, 
79-7, 79, 84-87, 
QI, 102, 146, 203 


St. John Baptist 


St. John i. 14 184, 191 
iM. 3 66 
ig. a2 85 n, QI, 302 
ili. 34 85 n 
vl. 53f 235, 239n, 246n 
vi. 56 263, 271-2 
vi. 63 233, 245-6,,40R0 
vi. 64 8in 
viii. 40 165 
viii. 58 187, 193, 302 
x30 164-5 
> ge ek So 
a S2,126,' 140, 

155, 158, 162, 164, 165 
Xi, 27 139n 
xiv. 28 III, 164 
XVil. 5 85, 147-8, 

185, 193, 195 
Xxi. 22 84n 


oseph Gn, 13. 20,22; 
Pp 


28, 39, 77, 292-302 


kenosts (see Phil. ii. 5-11) 108, 


118-9, 146, 147-9, 
183 f, 189, 190, 200-1 


Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. 39n 
St. Luke 13-18, 35, 37 n, 82 
St. Luke’s genealogy 39 
St. Luke i, ii 16-18, 52, 63, 294 
i. 41 f (Elisabeth) 22 
ii. 2 (census) 19-21 
li. 5 295 
li, 31-35 (Simeon) ry, 
li, 36 296 
ii. 40 78 
ii. 48 7n, 296 


Index. 


St. Lekeii. 52 78, 115, 118, 120, 
123-4, 127-9, 136-7, 141, 


150-2, 161, 167n, 181 
Magi 30-1, 34 
St. Mark ”| 
St. Mark vi. 3 (and ||) 7 
1X, (25 82 
xa 6 96 n, 114 
B. V. Mary 6n, 9, 


53, 18,20, 225 25.46) 
48, 61, 77, 292-301 
massacre of innocents 29-30, 55n 
St. Matthew’s genealogy 37-39 
use of prophecy 31 f 


St. Matt. i. ii 20,37, 63,262 


x1. 27 115, 165 
xviii. 3 66 
xxiv. 36 (St. Mark xiii. 

32) 83-4, 


III, 115-118, 123-133, 135-6, 

I4I, 149-150, 155, 158-9, 162, 

166n, 185, 195, 198-200, 203 
xxvi. 26 (see ‘ body ’) 

292, 240, 50 

XXxvVi. 38 128 n)-539n, 241 

xxvii. 46 (St. Mark xy. 

34) 83, 105, 127, 132, 

137, 141, 159, 197, 203 


xxvili. 18 I9g2n 

Xxvili. 20 193 
Messiah, messianic 15-18, 31, 
52-54, 76-7, 78 n 

Micah v. 2 34-5 
miracles of Christ 57, 79-80, 
140, 142, 165-6, 185, 203 

Moses 61 


negativesin Scripture,auseof 251 


O. T. language about God 172, 220 


St. Paul TOTTI, 17,535 
62, 76, 88-99, gI-2, 


102, 189, 203, 305 


IT. Names and Terms. 


St, Peter We 17, 54) 79 


Philippians ii. 5-11 (see kenosis) 
88-9, 143, 181, 
184, 199, 200, 203 
live 7 176, 280 


prayers of Christ 80, 82, 129, 
133M, 165, 185, 203 


prophecy 31-6, 57-8, 60 
prophetic attributes of Christ 80-1, 

84, 185 
Samuel 60, 78 


317 


Satan 24-26, 79, 144 
‘Second Adam’ Il, 65-7 
Synoptists 77-79 
Talmud 39, 289 


temptation of Christ 79, 109-10, 
140, 141, 144, 187 


tradition in Scripture 42 
Zacharias 22, 58 
Zechariah BY, 


NAMES AND TERMS 


Abelard (1079-1142) 176n, 
260n, 267 
Academy O61n, 289, 290, 294, 298n 
actio adductiva, productiva 2540 
adoptionists 160n, 161 
Adrevaldus (c. 818-878, monk of 
Fleury) 240n 
Africanus, Julius (of Emmaus, s. iii 
init.) 29, 38n 
Agnoetae 154-158, 161 
Agobard (779-840, abp of Lyons 
813) 162 
Alcuin, Albinus Flaccus (c. 735-804, 
at Charlemagne’s court 782) 
102 n, 167, 234, 235n, 280 
Alexander III (pope 1159-1151) 
176 n, 177, 283 
Alexander of Hales (doctor at Paris 
+1245) 252n 
Alger (canon of Liége c. I101, +c. 
1131) 254n, 264-5, 275n 
Allen, Rev. W. C. 298 n 
Amalarius of Metz (+ c. 837) 
234-5, 394 


Ambrose (bp of Milan 374, +397) 


127-9, 132, 215n, 

230n, 236n, 245, 262 

de Sacramentis 230n, 236n 

de Mysterits 236n 
Anastasius 104 


Andrewes (1555-1626, bp of Win- 
chester 1618) 197 
Anglicanism 196 f. 205, 213 
Anselm (1033-1109, abp of Canter- 
bury I093) 266n, 267n, 285n 


anthropomorphism 250 
avridoats idimpatov 182-3 
avTiruTa 231 


Apollinarius (bp of Laodicea, Syria, 


+ Cc. 390) 138-9, 
I4In, 142, 145n, 152-4, 

175 n, 280-1, 305-6 

Apuleius (fl. 173) 2g1 


Aquinas, Thomas (1225-1274, do- 
minican 1243) 156n, 160n, 
168, 169n, 174n, 1770, 

180, 183n, 267n, 283 

Aristides (of Athens, s. ii init.) 46 


318 


Arius (c. 256-336), Arianism 122-3, 
139, 159, 208-9, 250 


Arnold, Sir Edwin 59 
Asclepiades 55 
Asita 56, 58 


Athanasius (c. 296-373, bp of Alex- 
andria 326) 103-4, 
123-6, 129, 130, 139, 140, 

145, 153, 164, 171, 305 

Atia 55 
Augustine (354-430, bp of Hippo 
395) 132, 130-8, 166, 176, 
232, 233M, 234, 237, 240, 

249, 265n, 275, 280, 306-7 
Augustus (B.C. 63 — A.D. 14) 4; 
20-1, 55-6, 290 


Badham, Mr F. P. 289-290 
Bar-cochba 48, 48n 
Basil (c. 329-379, abp of Caesarea 

370) 123, 127, 130 
Beal, Rev. S. 58n 
3ellarmine, Cardinal (1542-1621, 

Italian Jesuit) 276 
Berengar (998-1088, archdeacon of 


Angers) 240n, 
247-258, 259, 262-5, 267 
Bergmann 19 


Bernard (1091-1153, founded Clair- 
vaux I115) 
Severidge (1638-1708, bp of St. 
Asaph 1704) 198 
3ingham (1668-1723) 178 

3oetins (c. 470-524, consul 510) 
III n, 194, 235n 


Bright, Dr W. 104n, 164, 
199-201, 208n 
Bruce, Dr A. B. 4n, 89n, 


IFO, 152; 17900, 401.0, 

182, 184n, 188n, 189n 

Buddha 4, 56-58, 291 
Bull (1624-1710, bp of St. Davids 
1705) 112 n, 178, 198 
Burkitt, Mr F. C. 292 n, 295 n 


166n. 


Index. 


Cabasilas, Nicolas (1371, bp of 


Thessalonica) 172 
Candidus 209 n 
Carlyle 65 
Carpenter, Dr E. 55n, 560n 
Caspari, Dr C. P. 153 


Cassian, John (c. 360-c. 450) 98 
Cassiodorus (c. 480-c. 575, consul 
614, monk.c. 550) | Dip m) by 
Cerinthus (s. 1) 8, 49-41 
Charles the Bald (823-877, k. of 
France 840) 236, 240 
Charles the Great (742-814, king 
768, emperor 800) 230 
Chrysostom, John (c 347-407, bp 


of CP 398) orn, 

102 n, 131, 274 

Church, Dean 199, 200 
Church Quarterly Review 48 n, 


153, 222; 301 
Clement of Alexandria (c. 160— 
c. 220) 47, 113-4, 
121,202; 229m, cana 

Clement of Rome (s. i) 106-7 
Codex Sinaiticus 61n, 84n, 
85 n, 292-302 

Colet (+1519, dean of St. Paul’s 


1505) 179, 180 
conimunicatto tdiomatum 182-3 
Conybeare, Mr F. C. 48 n, 55n, 


61 n, 290-1, 294n, 295, 298 
Copleston, Bp 56n, 58, 59n 
Corderius, B. (Jesuit, s. xvii) 174n 
Councils— 

Nicaea (325) 42 n, 195, 208-9 
Ephesus (431) 155n, 195 
Chalcedon (451) 153, 154-5, 

162-3, 210-I, 230, 278 
Constantinople III (680) 154, 211 
Nicaea II (787) 230, 233 0 
Lateran IV (1215) 178, 248, 268 


Basle (1431-1438) 168 n 
Trent (1545-1563) 267 n 
creationist language 254n 


IT. Names 


creeds, confessions 42-47, 
107-8, 170-1, 182 n, 212 

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444, bp 
of A. 412) 131, 145-6, 
149-154, 163 n, 164-5, 

201, 231n, 281 n, 306 

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386, bp 


of J.. 350) 231 Nn 
Dale, Dr R. W. 23n 
Delitzsch, Dr F. 38n, 189 
Denny and Lacey 284n 
depotentiation 152, 188 
Didache 42, 53 
Didymus of Alexandria (c. 309- 

c. 394) 130-1 
Diogenes Laertius 291 


Dionysius of Alexandria (+265, bp 

of A. 247) 122 
Dionysius the Areopagite (s. v—vi) 

172-174, 175n, 241 n, 280 


divinity of Christ assumed 106-7 
docetism 114, 146 
dogma 170 
Domitian (emp. 81-96) 30n, 38n 


Wormer, Dr J. A. I12n, 154n, 
155, 1720, 1790, 


i8in, 184, 193-5 
double life of Christ 183, 192, 215 
SovAos Kupiov 160-1 
Draseke, Dr J. 153 


Durandus of St. Portian (+1334, 
domin. bp of Meaux 1326) 283 
Durandus of Troarn (108g, abbot 


of St. Martin, T. 1059) 263 
Ebionism 51-54 
Edersheim, Dr A. Ign, 22n, 35n 
Einig, Dr P. 284n 


Eleutherus (pope between 170 and 
190) 43 
Enoch, Book of 17n, 26n 
Ephraim of Antioch (+545, bp of A. 
527) 275-6 


and Terms. 319 


Ephraim Syrus (+373, deacon of 


Edessa) 130, 295n 
Epiphanius, deacon 231n 
Erasmus (1467-1536> 179-180 


Erigena, John Scotus (Irish monk, 
in France 846, + c. 877) 174-5, 
240n, 247-8, 280-1 

Eulogius (+607, bp of Alexandria 
579) 126n, 156-7, 158-9 
Eusebius (c. 260-339, bp of Caesarea 
Ge; 383) 29n, 38n, 41 n, 
430, 54N, 100-103, 104, 304 
Eutyches (c. 378—c. 454, abbot in 


CP) 143, 154 
Eutychius (512-582, bp of CP 552) 
231n 

Fairbairn, Dr A. M. 4n, 60, 
189-192 

Farrar, Dr F. W. Ign 
Fathers, the 213-4, 250 


Felix of Urgel (bp of U. c. 783, 
deposed 799) 162 
Florus Diaconus (of Lyons, +c. 860) 


235, 282 
Floss, H. J. 240n 
Franzelin, Cardinal 284 


Fulbert of Chartres (+1029, bp of 


C. 1007) 254n 
Fulgentius (468-533, bp of Ruspe 
508) 167, 246n 


Geikie, Dr C. 1g a, 350 
Gelasius (pope 492-496) 275 
Georgius Scholarius (=Gennadius, 


bp of CP. 1453-1458)  278n 
Gess, W. F. 184, 188 
Gibson, Miss M. D. 292 n 


Gieseler, Dr J.C. L. 211n, 2370, 
250n, 264n, 276n 

gnosticism 8, 50, 109, 111, 113, 273 
Godet, Dr F. I4n, Ign, 
39, 184-8, Igi1-2 


320 


Gregory of Bergamo (bp of B. 1134) 
265-6, 281, 282 

Gregory the Great (pope 590-604) 
157, 159, 167n 

Gregory Nazianzen (c. 325-389, bp 
of Sasima 373, CP 379-381) 
123, 126-7, 130, 

137, 159, 1830 

Gregory Nyssen (c. 331-394, bp of 
Nyssa 372) 127, 139-44, 
146n, 183n, 209n, 231 

Gregory Thaumaturgus (bp of Neo- 


caesarea C. 240) 153 
Guardian 295 n 
Guitmundus, see Witmund 
Gwatkin, Dr H. M. 122.n, 

208n, 209n 
Hadrian I (pope 772-795) 160n 


Haimo (778-853, bp of Halber- 


stadt 840) 2460-7 
Harnack, Dr A. an R22 
Harris, Mr Rendel 7n, 46n, 292n 
Hatch, Dr E. 1730 
Hebert, Dr C. 240n 
Hegesippus (s. il fin.) 38 n, 

41 n, 54 
Hermas (s. ii med.) 48n, 107n 
Heurtley, Dr 42n, 208 


Hilary of Poitiers (+368, bp of P. 
C. 353) 72, 74-5; 
104n, IIIn, 128n, 132-5, 

137, 145-9, 209n, 306 

Hildebert (1057-1133, abp of Tours 


1125) 266-7 
Hildebrand (=Gregory VII, pope 
1073-1085) 257n 
Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn 295n 
Hillel 38 
Hincmar (+882, abp of Reims 845) 
240 


Hippolytus (of Rome, s. ili init.) 52n 
Holland, Rev. H. S. 25m 
homo Tlin, 4150 


Index. 


homoouston 269, 272 
Hooker, Richard (1553-1600) 
143, 1 96-7 


Huet, P. D. (1630-1721, bp of 
Avranches 1689) 115n, 120n 
Hugh of Langres (+1051, bp of 
L.. 1031) 249 n, 256n, 258 
Hugh of St. Victor (f1141)  278n 
Humbert, Cardinal (+1063, card. 


1051) 248, 253-4, 257, 258n 
Hutton, Mr R. H. 192 
Huxley, Prof. T: Ei. 217 


Ignatius (+ c. 115, bp of Antioch) 
8, 34n, 46, 48 n, 106-7 
zmpanatio, tnvinatio 259, 262 
tntellectualis 250 
Irenaeus (bp of Lyons 177) 8, 41n, 


43-4, 49, 50, 52, 93, 98-100, 
107-112, 121, 171, 198,275 


Jerome (c.346—420,at Bethlehem 387) 
5on, 220, 128n, 132, 
135—6, 239n, 289-291 
Pseudo-Jerome 136n 
Jewish Quarterly Review 48n 
John Cassian, see Cassian 
John Chrysostom, see Chrysostom 
John of Cornwall (c. 1170) 
176n, 177n 
John Damascene (c. 676—c. 760, 
monk of S Saba) 102n,126n, 


156n, 160-1, 166, 
183n, 230-1, 236n 
Pseudo-John 260n 


John Scotus Erigena, see Erigena 
Josephus (37—c. 100) 19, 20n, 
26n, 29n, 30, 31 n, 38n 


Jovius 1750 
Julius (pope 337-352) 153 
Julius Marathus 55 
Justin Martyr (+ c. 163) 455 

51, 289-290 
Justinian (emperor 527-565) 145n. 


II. Names 


Keim 


Ign, 35 

Kernel and the Husk, the an, 
58, 61, 63n 

Kohler, Dr 48n 
Lagrange, Fr M.-J. 300n 
Landriot, Mgr 177n 


Lanfranc (c. 1005-1089, abp of 
Canterbury 1070) 230n, 248n, 

249, 253, 2570, 258, 275n 

Leo (pope 440-461) 163, 197, 211 
Leontius of Byzantium (s. vi) 132, 
144, 153, 155m, 156, 

157-8, 160, 175n, 182n, 

276-8, 281n, 286, 305 

Leporius 132, 137-8 
Lequien (dominican, s. xvii—xviii) 
183 n, 278n 

Lessius (1554-1623, Jesuit of Lou- 


vain) 254n, 270, 278 
Lewis, Mrs. 292, 302 
Liddon, Dr H. P. T28n, 155 


Lightfoot, Bp 36n, 88n, 92, 106n 
Loisy, M. l’Abbé 35n, 39n 
Lombard, Peter, see Peter L. 

Loofs, Prof. F. 153n, 156n 
Lotze, Hermann 223n 


de Lugo, Cardinal (1583-1660, 

Jesuit) 168n, 169, 17on 
Luther (1483-1546) 181-2, 184 
Lutheran 182-3, 240n 
Lux Mundi 57n 


Mabillon (1632-1707, benedict. of 


St. Maur) 234-5, 237n 
Macarius Magnes (c. 350) 245N, 
304 

Macarius, Bp 284n 
Mai, Cardinal 156n 


Mansi, J. D. (abp of Lucca, s. xviii) 
177 n, 178n, 257 n, 268 


Marcellus of Ancyra (s.iv) 139n 
Martensen, Bp 192-3, 215 
Martineau, Dr J. 224 


and Terms. 


321 
Martini (dominican, s. xiii) 289 
Mason, Dr A. J. 231 n 
Maurice, F. D. 24n 
Meyer, Dr H. A. W. 3n 


miracles 236, 249, 258 n, 

261, 264, 270-1, 278n 
Missal 246, 250-1 
Moesinger, Dr G. 130n, 295n 
Mommsen, Dr Th. Ig, 2In 


monophysitism 153, 154-6, 


182, 274, 280-2 


Morin, Dom G, 106 n 
Nazarenes 52n 
neo-platonism 173 
Nestorius (bp of CP 428-431), 

104, 145 
Nestorianism 12I n, 144, 


156n, 160-1, 181-2, 194-5 
Newman, Card. 102n, 120n, 154 
Nicolas II (pope 1059-1061) 

257-8 
Nicolas Cabasilas, see Cabasilas 


Niemeyer, Dr H. A. 182n 
nihilianism 175-7, 279 f 
oixovopia 151 
Oldenberg, Prof. 56n 
Origen (c. 185-c. 253) 45 n, 


47, 48, 52n, 100, 108, 
IT4-I2I, 122, 132, 
I7I, 218, 224, 291 


Pange lingua 235n 
Panthera 6n 
Paschasius Radbert (+865, abbot of 
Corbey 844) 236-241, 
243n, 246, 282 

Pearson (1613-1686, bp of Chester 
1673) 196 n, 289 
Perrone, F. (S. J.) 271 n, 278n 
Petavius (1583-1652, French Jesuit) 
160n, 169, 179n 


Peter, Gospel of 48, 50 


322 


Peter Lombard (+1160, abp of Paris 
1158) 167 n, 168, 175-6, 
178, 260n, 267, 280, 282 

Peter the Venerable (+1156, abbot 
of Cluny 1122) 264 
Philo ( c. 45) 50, 61-3, 298 
Photius (c. 815-891, bp of CP 857) 


158, 276n 

Plato 65, 290-1 
Polycarp (t+ c. 155, bp of Smyrna) 
8, 44 


Proclus of Cyzicus (+446, bp of CP 


434) 104 
Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 403-c. 463) 


275 
Psalms of Solomon Ign, 17n 
Quadratus (s. ii) 46 
Quirinius, Publius Sulpicins 19 


Rabanus Maurus (c. 776-856, abp 


of Mainz 847) 237n 
239-40, 280 

Rahlfs, Dr 298n, 299n 
Ramsay, Prof. W. M. I5, 30n 


Ratherius of Liége (+974, bp of 
Verona 932) 250 
Katramn (c. 868, monk of Corbey) 
239 N, 240-246, 247, 249, 255 
reception by the wicked, receptionist 
232, 234, 237, 239, 262-3 
Reformed, the 182-3 
Renan, E. 3n, 6n, 29n, 
35, 38n, 55 n, 61n 


vrepraesentare 310 
res and virtus sacrament 2340, 

240, 255, 266 
Rhys Davids, Prof. 58, 59 


Richard of St. Victor (+1173, prior 


of St. V. 1162) 178 
Robertson, Rev. A. P22; 052 
Robinson, Rev. J. A. 50 


Routh, Dr M. J. 
Rugamer, P. W, 


2740, 275n 
153n, 156n 


Index. 


Rupert of Deutz (+1135, abbot 


of D:.c. 1120) 276 
Ryle and James 14n 
Sabellianism 122 
Sanday, Dr W. i4,; 15 \n; 

22, 7On, 201 
Schell, Dr H: 169 n 


science, physical § 216-7, 222, 285 
sctentia beata, indtta, acquisita 168 


Sentius Saturninus 21 
seven sacraments, the 265-6 
Severians 154m, 155 
segna (of sacraments) 232, 246-7, 

2k5 202, 282, 312 
Simcox, Rev. W. H. 54n 


Simeon, bp of Jerusalem (s. ii) 54 
Socrates (of CP, c. 439) 42n 
Solomon, Psalms of, see Psalms 
Sophronius (+638, bp of Jerusalem 
634) 157 


spectes, Christ entire in each 266n 
Stanley, Dean 29n 
Stanton, Prof. V. 18n, 

52n, 289 


Stephen of Baugé (+1139, bp of 

Autun 1112) 208 n 
Stokes, Prof. Sir G. G. 216-7 
Strauss 35 
Strong, Rev. T. B. 224n 
Suarez (1548-1617, Spanish Jesuit) 


169 
‘ substance ’ 123, 194, 281 
substance and accidents 242 n, 


252, 272, 283 


Suetonius 20n, 310, 55 
ouvapea 144 
supernatural and natural, the 109 


273-4, 277-8, 280, 285-6 


Tacitus 20, 31n 
Tatian the Syrian (s. ii) 130, 295n 
Taylor, Jeremy (1613-1667, bp of 

Down and Connor 1660) 197 


II. Names 


Taylor, Dr C. 48n 
Tertullian (fl. c. 200) at, 
41n, 44, 49, 109, 245 n, 

289-290, 303, 308-312 

Testament of the xt¢ Patriarchs 48 
Oeavdpix evepyea 174 
Themistius (of Alexandria, s. vi 
init.) 155, 156n 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428, 
bp of M. 392) 144-5 
Theodore (s. vi, abbot CP) 156n 
Theodoret (c. 393-c. 457, bp of 
Cyrrhus 423) 131-2, 160, 275 
Theodosius (bp of Alexandria 536). 


Theodosians 155n, 157 
Thomasius 189 
Tobit, Book of 26n 
tradition 41, 106, 121 
transubstantiare 268 n 
Trench, Abp 24n 
Trypho 45, 51 


and Terms. 


323 
ubiquity, doctrine of 182, 240n 
Victorinus Afer (fl, 360) 209 
Vincenti 289 
Vischer, A. F. & F. Th. 248 n 
Wainewright, Mr J. B. 284n 


Waterland (1683-1740) 198 
Weiss, Dr B. ou CA 
Westcott, Bp 82n, 85n, 89, 93, 
146, 166, 173 n, 199, 200 

Witmund (bp of Aversa 1088) 
249n, 259-263, 
264-5, 267, 282 


Wright, Mr L. 216n 


Zacharias (at Besangon 1131, pre- 
monst. at Lacn 1157) 2640 
Zoroaster 4 


THE END. 








ayer 


iv 





* x 4 ¥, 
Fag 
at [a > ‘ 


WE hatte 

te ALAC aD, 

i ee ’ 
Av, 7 

wr: 








Yes re 


A. 4 ee s 
FF; ante 
cd i it , ? 

















